Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Cal. 576

People v. Dolan

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1858

California Supreme Court · decided 1858-07-01

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of murder.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1948

12 state decisions

301858186018701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Terry, C. T., delivered the opinion of the Court—Field J., concurring.

¶1Defendant was tried and convicted on an indictment charging him with the crime of murder in the first degree. The points taken by appellant are :

¶21. “ The indictment «wrongly attempts to fix or designate the degree of murder.”

¶32. “ It is insufficient in its statement of the acts and circumstances necessary to constitute the offence therein charged.”

¶43. “ It does not contain a sufficient charge to predicate thereon a verdict of murder in the first degree.”

¶5The first objection is frivolous. It is certainly not necessary that the grand jury should designate the degree of murder, though there is no impropriety in their doing so. FTor is it perceived in what manner the defendant is prejudiced by this act. Under an indictment charging murder, the trial jury are required to designate the degree of guilt, and may find any offence included in the charge, and they have equally this privilege if the indictment charge murder in the first degree, as the offence of murder in the second degree and manslaughter are necessarily included in it.

¶6The second objection is not well taken. We have held that the substantial facts necessary to constitute the crime charged, must appear in the indictment with sufficient certainty to enable the Court to pronounce a proper judgment, and the party to defend against the charge.

¶7But it is not necessary that they should be stated with the particularity which was required at common law.

¶8It is sufficient if a man of ordinary intelligence can understand from the indictment, that, under such circumstances as show a felonious intent, a mortal wound was inflicted by the defendant upon the deceased, of which wound he died within a year and a day from its infliction.

¶9The third objection is founded on the absence of the word “ deliberate,” which the applicant contends is necessary to constitute the crime of murder in the first degree.

¶10The indictment charges the act to have been done with malice aforethought. Aforethought, as defined by Webster, means premeditated; premeditate and deliberate are synonymous. The *584definition given of murder in the statute is, “ the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, expressed or implied.” This definition includes both degrees of murder, and it is sufficient if the indictment charge the offence in the language of the statute defining it. (People v. Parsons, 6 Cal., 487.)

¶11Judgment affirmed, and the Court below directed to appoint a day for the execution of its sentence.

/9/cal/576 · .json · Public domain