People v. Riordan

• Decision Date: 15 October 1889
• Citation: 117 N.Y. 71,22 N.E. 455
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RIORDAN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

117 N.Y. 71

22 N.E. 455

PEOPLE

v.RIORDAN.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 15, 1889.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fourth department.

John D. Riordan appealed from a conviction of manslaughter in the second degree to the general term of the supreme court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court, (3 N. Y. Supp. 774,) and the people appeal.

DANFORTH, J., dissenting.

Irving R. Devendorf, Dist. Atty., for the People.

A. M. Mills, for respondent.

ANDREWS, J.

The conviction in this case cannot be disturbed unless there was error in the charge. The rule that, in criminal cases, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt, applies, not only to the case as made by the prosecution, but to any defense interposed. Stokes v. People, 53 N. Y. 164;Brotherton v. People, 75 N. Y. 159;O'Connell v. People, 87 N. Y. 377;People v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58. The defendant on the trial sought to establish that the homicide was committed in self-defense. This issue was tried, and submitted to the jury, as a material issue in the case. This court cannot say that there was an absence of any evidence to support it. The court, in its charge, instructed the jury that ‘the defendant in a criminal action is always presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and, in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.’ If the matter had been left here, there would have been no error. The charge covered the point that a reasonable doubt upon any material issue was to operate in favor of the defendant. But on the conclusion of the main charge the district attorney asked the court to charge ‘that, where the defendant makes a claim of self-defense,-that the homicide was committed in self-defense,-the burden of establishing the necessary facts to avail himself of that defense is upon the defenant;’ and the court replied: ‘I think I have already charged that;’ and the defendant excepted to the proposition presented by the prosecution, and acceded to by the court. The court then said: ‘I charge that where a defense of self-defense is set up, in the legal term, the burden of proof is upon the defendant to establish his defense beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The district attorney then said: ‘I ask the court to withdraw that charge. We do not claim that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to establish the defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The court replied: ‘I think I will leave it as it is.’ Some time later in the proceedings, the court said: ‘With regard to that portion of the charge which was made at the request of the district attorney, the court will withdraw what it said to the jury on that subject, and will charge this: ‘He must make his defense appear to the jury, availing himself of all the evidence in the case on either side;’' and to this also the...