Giles v. United States, 10668.

Decision Date25 September 1944
Docket NumberNo. 10668.,10668.
Citation144 F.2d 860
PartiesGILES v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Harry G. McCain, of Ketchikan, Alaska, for appellant.

Lynn J. Gemmill, U. S. Atty., Division No. 1, Robert L. Jernberg and Robert L. Tollefsen, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Juneau, Alaska, and J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., of Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment sentencing appellant to serve a five year term in the penitentiary for the crime of negligent homicide in violation of Section 4764, C.L.A., 1933, providing as follows:

"Sec. 4764. Negligent homicide. Every killing of a human being by the culpable negligence of another, when such killing is not murder in the first or second degree, or is not justifiable or excusable, shall be deemed manslaughter, and shall be punished accordingly."

The evidence shows that appellant, who had been drinking, was in his dwelling, seated on his bed, with a powerful hunting rifle over his knees, the loading mechanism of which he was manipulating and explaining to a friend, who was about to go on a hunting expedition. In that operation the brass cartridge would be visible to appellant before the mechanism was closed to a position where the trigger could be pulled. His dwelling was a two-room apartment consisting of the bedroom in which the two men were examining the rifle and a kitchen adjoining. Appellant's wife was in the kitchen, where she came in the line of a bullet discharged from the rifle. The husband, looking down at the loading mechanism, pulled the trigger, the rifle was discharged and its bullet passed through his wife's legs causing an injury from which she died. There is no evidence of an intent to kill or that appellant flourished the rifle or pointed it in her direction.

Appellant assigns as error that the district court failed to give an instruction on Section 4776 of Chapter 39, S.L.A. 1935, as an included offense. That section provides:

"Section 4776. Pointing firearms at and discharging the same and injurying thereby. Whoever intentionally, and without malice, points or aims any firearm at or toward any person, or discharges any firearm so pointed or aimed, or who points and discharges any firearm at or toward any person or object without knowing, the identity of such object and thereby maims or injures any human being, shall be guilty of the careless use of firearms and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than One Thousand Dollars, or imprisoned, not more than one year, or both so fined and imprisoned, and if death ensue from such maiming or injuring the person discharging such firearm may, in the discretion of the prosecuting officer or grand jury, be charged with the crime of manslaughter. This section shall not extend to any case where firearms are used in self defense or in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Schmuck v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1989
    ...offenses to those "necessarily included in the offense charged." The nature of that prevailing practice is clear. In Giles v. United States, 144 F.2d 860 (CA9 1944), decided just three months before the adoption of Rule 31(c), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unequivocably applied......
  • State v. Franklin
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1954
    ...the lesser crime must "be such that it is impossible to commit the greater without first having committed the lesser." Giles v. United States, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 860, 861; United States v. Barbeau, D.C., 92 F.Supp. 196; Barbeau v. United States, 9 Cir., 193 F.2d In the Prater case, as we have......
  • People v. Nyx
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • July 18, 2007
    ...arson could be committed without first having committed second-degree arson, thereby failing a test articulated in Giles v. United States, 144 F.2d 860, 861 (C.A.9, 1944), and House v. State, 186 Ind. 593, 117 N.E. 647 (1917). The Salinas court rejected that This test is of doubtful applica......
  • U.S. v. Chanthadara
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • November 1, 2000
    ...such that it is impossible to commit the greater without first having committed the lesser.'" Id. at 719 (quoting Giles v. United States, 144 F.2d 860, 861 (9th Cir. 1944) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, when "the lesser offense requires an element not required for the grea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT