Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 Cal. 607

People v. Donguli

California Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1891

California Supreme Court · decided 1891-12-31

<p>Criminal Law — Appeal — Review of Instructions. — Where the record on appeal in a criminal action contains no part of the evidence, the appellate court will not reverse the judgment on account of instructions alleged to be erroneous, unless it appears that such instruction would have been erroneous under every conceivable state of facts.</p> <p>Id.—Instruction as to Reasonable Doubt — Natural Law.— An instruction that the jury are not at liberty to go outside of the evidence in the case to find a reason for doubting the guilt or innocence of the defendant is not subject to the objection that it excludes a doubt founded upon the knowledge of natural laws inconsistent with the hypothesis of guilt contended for by the prosecution, when there is nothing in the record to indicate that the prosecution contended for any hypothesis inconsistent with natural law, or that evidence of any natural law would have been relevant or material.</p> <p>Id. — Homicide — Self-defense — Apparent Danger — Belief of Defendant — Instruction. — Where a homicide is sought to be justified</p> <p>on the ground of self-defense in view of apparent danger, a part of an instruction, to the effect that it must appear to the jury that the danger to the defendant must be “present, apparent, and imminent,” though not by itself clearly distinguishing between actual and apparent danger, could not be misunderstood by the jury, if the whole instruction, properly construed by reading all parts of it together, evidently does not mean that the danger must be real or actual, but means only that to justify the killing on the ground of self-defense, it must have been done under a well-founded belief that it was absolutely necessary, to save the defendant from death or great bodily harm.</p> <p>Id__Well-founded Belief of Danger.—A belief that the danger is such as to justify the killing may be “well founded,” although there may be no actual danger.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1926

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-12-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McFarland, J., concurring.

¶1I concur in the judgment, because I think that, taking the charge to the jury as a whole, the appellant was not prejudiced. But I do not think that courts hereafter should adopt that part of the charge which deals with the subject of reasonable doubt as an entirely proper instruction. For instance, the jury are told that if they have a reasonable doubt, then they “should be able to give some reason . . . . for such doubt.” Now, there are intelligent and sensible jurors able to come to correct conclusions which are expressed by the formula “ guilty,” or “ not guilty,” whose minds have not been trained in the exercise of expressing in language the train of reasoning by which they arrive at their verdicts. They are not required to “ give ” their reasons; that is not their business.

/92/cal/607 · .json · Public domain