People v. Bernard
| Citation | 2 Idaho 193,10 P. 30 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BERNARD |
| Decision Date | 03 March 1886 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
CRIMINAL PRACTICE-INSTRUCTIONS.-Under the Criminal Practice Act the trial court, in charging the jury, may state the evidence and declare the law.
SAME.-The entire charge on a particular point must be considered in determining whether or not it is misleading.
SAME.-The instructions herein examined and held not prejudicial to the defendant.
APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County.
Affirmed.
Brumback & Lamb, for Appellant.
D. P B. Pride, Attorney General, for the People.
No briefs on file.
The defendant was accused of the murder of John J. Enright, was tried, and convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to hard labor in the territorial prison for eight years. From this judgment he appeals. The first point made on his behalf on the appeal is that the court erred in giving the jury the following instruction: "Evidence has been given tending to show that the deceased, John Enright, entered the printing office of the defendant for the purpose of taking therefrom his blankets, and that while there he addressed to defendant certain language which you remember, and thereupon the defendant got down from the printing stool and ordered him, Enright, out of his office; that said Enright not going on such order, the defendant fired his revolver at him, and inflicted upon the deceased the wound from which he died." The criticism on the foregoing instruction is on the latter part of it; that is, it is claimed the court erred in saying to the jury: "The defendant fired his revolver at him, and inflicted upon the deceased the wound from which he died." Under our statute (Criminal Practice Act, sec. 354) the court, in charging the jury, may state the testimony and declare the law; this is what was here done. We cannot by any rule of law subdivide this instruction in the manner contended for, but we must take and consider the entire paragraph, and thus determine whether or not it was misleading. Certainly, under our practice and the circumstances of this case, it was not error for the court to tell the jury that there was evidence tending to prove the facts as stated in this instruction.
The second alleged error complained of is the giving of the following instruction: "There must be danger of personal injury, or the fear of personal injury, to that extent that the only means to avoid the loss of life, or great personal injury, is to kill the assailant." Section 26 of crimes act fully warrants this instruction. Had this section of the statute been copied and given as an instruction, the defendant would have had as good ground for complaint as he has against the one given and here objected to.
The third and last alleged error complained of is in giving the following portion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jurko
...be real, or bear all the semblance of reality, and appear to admit of no other alternative before taking of life will be justified. (People v. Bernard, supra; State v. Lyons, Erwin v. State, 29 Ohio St. 186, 23 Am. Rep. 733; State v. Miller, 73 S.C. 277, 114 Am. St. 82, 53 S.E. 426; Weaver ......
-
State v. Neil
...... State, 19 Neb. 330, 27 N.W. 234; Brown v. Commonwealth, 102 Ky. 227, 43 S.W. 214; Perez v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 87 S.W. 351; People v. Kirwan, 22 N.Y.S. 160; Hollister v. State, 156. Ind. 255, 59 N.E. 847; Toulet v. State, 100 Ala. 72,. 14 So. 403; Jones v. State, 90 Ala. ... . . The. entire charge on a particular point must be considered to. determine whether it is misleading. ( People v. Bernard, 2 Idaho 193, 10 P. 30; State v. Wetter, 11 Idaho 433, 83 P. 341.). . . The. instructions are to be considered as a whole, and an. ......
-
State v. Mcmahan
...... P. Kester, Leo McCarty, Verner R. Clements and Cox & Ware for. Appellant. . . Only. gross negligence constitutes a felony. ( People v. Rosenheimer, (1913) 209 N.Y. 115, 102 N.E. 530, 531 at. 533, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 161, 46 L. R. A., N. S., 977; State. v. Lester, (1914) 127 ...Evans, 2 Idaho 425, 17 P. 139;. People v. Ah Too, 2 Idaho 44, 3 P. 10; People v. Armstrong, 2 Idaho 298, 13 P. 342; People v. Bernard, 2 Idaho 193, 10 P. 30; People v. Biles, 2 Idaho 114, 6 P. 120; People v. Dewey, . 2 Idaho 83, 6 P. 103; People v. Kuok Wah Choi, 2. Idaho ......
-
State v. McClurg, 5622
...... continuance should be granted. ( Schaffer v. Territory, 14 Ariz. 329, 127 P. 746; McLey v. People, 49 Colo. 328, 112 P. 691; Hockley v. People, 30 Colo. 119, 69 P. 512; Simmons v. State, 116 Ga. 583, 42 S.E. 779, Blackman v. State, 76 ... . . It is. well settled under our practice that instructions must be. read, considered and applied as a whole. ( People v. Bernard , 2 Idaho 193, 10 P. 30; Territory v. Evans , 2 Idaho 425, 17 P. 139; State v. Bond ,. 12 Idaho 424, 86 P. 43; State v. Ramirez , 33 Idaho. ......