Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

116 Cal. 179

People v. Durrant

California Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1897

California Supreme Court · decided 1897-03-03

D. J. Murphy, Judge. The latter part of instruction X asked for by the defendant, and refused, and which is referred to in the opinion of the court, was as follows: “It is safer to err in acquitting, and better that many guilty persons should escape, than that one innocent man should suffer.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Hypothetical Question”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-03-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 220 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler (1978), 23 Cal. 4th 183 - People v. Superior Court (Zamudio) (2000)

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 188 state decisions — followed in 21 states

3301897190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McFarland, J., concurring.

¶1I have signed the opinion of Mr. Justice Hensliaw, and thereby concurred in his opinion and in the judgment of affirmance. But while I can see no legal ground for a reversal of the judgment, I desire to say that the conviction of appellant would have been much more satisfactory if he had been tried in some county far beyond the reach of the threatening atmosphere which surrounded him at the place of his trial, and where the active and long continued attempts to forestall judicial inquiry and compel a hostile decision could not possibly have had much force. As the case stands it is somewhat difficult to feel sufficiently assured that outside adverse pressure *226did not liave some insensible influence. Bat, whether or not appellant had a substantially fair trial, notwithstanding circumstances which certainly made it difficult for him to have such a trial, is a question which addressed itself, in the first instance,- to the presiding judge of the trial court; and it is not so apparent that he abused his discretion in determining that question in the affirmative, as to give this court warrant to reverse the order denying a new trial. As to the -other points involved in the appeal, I am clear that no substantial error was committed.

¶2Rehearing denied.

¶3Beatty, C. J., dissented from the order denying a rehearing.

/116/cal/179 · .json · Public domain