¶1In the charge to the jury the Court instructed them that “ all that is necessary in order to justify the jury in finding the defendant guilty is, that they shall be satisfied from the evidence of the defendant’s guilt to a moral certainty, and beyond a reasonable doubt, although they may not be entirely satisfied from the evidence that the defendant and no other person committed the alleged offense.” This instruction is almost identical with those which were held to be erroneous in People v. Phipps, 39 Cal. 326, and in People v. Padilla, 42 Cal. 535, and on the authority of these cases the judgment and order are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.
52 Cal. 446
People v. Kerrick
Decided July 1, 1877
California Supreme Court · decided 1877-07-01
The defendant was indicted for forgery, alleged to have been committed on the 20th day of June, 1874, by forging a bill of sale of a band of sheep. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he moved for a new trial for error in the instructions, and appealed from the judgment and from an order denying the same. The record did not contain the testimony.
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1897
6 state decisions
Relies on People v. Phipps · People v. Padillia
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1877-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →