People v. Kerrick

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Kaiser

    119 Cal. 456 (Cal. 1897)   Cited 10 times

    " The court struck out the word "entirely" in both places where it was used, and then gave the instruction.          In People v. Padillia , 42 Cal. 535, in People v. Kerrick , 52 Cal. 446, and in People v. Carrillo , 70 Cal. 643, the instructions under review were substantially the same and to the following effect: "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 [51 P. 704] satisfied from the evidence that the defendant and no other person committed the alleged offense." In reversing these cases, it was said that the modification, "although they may not be entirely satisfied," etc., was, and was intended to be, a material qualification of the first clause, which contained a correct statement of the law.

  2. People v. Durrant

    116 Cal. 179 (Cal. 1897)   Cited 126 times
    In People v. Durrant, 116 Cal. 179, 213 [148 P. 75, 84], involving a charge of murder prosecuted by information, the court allowed the prosecution to refresh the recollection of the witness by his deposition taken at the preliminary examination.

    (People v. Cowgill , 93 Cal. 596; Chambers v. State , 105 Ill. 409; 3 Rice's Criminal Evidence, 159.) From the evidence it cannot be said that no other person than the defendant committed the murder, and it was therefore the duty of the jury to acquit the defendant. (People v. Kerrick , 52 Cal. 446; People v. Brown , 56 Cal. 406; People v. Brown , 59 Cal. 345.) The prosecution failed to show any motive on the part of the defendant for the killing, and it therefore became the manifest duty of the jury to acquit.

  3. People v. Ark

    61 Cal. 527 (Cal. 1882)   Cited 10 times
    In People v. Cheong Foon Ark, 61 Cal. 527, the proposed instruction was well-nigh identical with the instruction here, but there the court refused to give the instruction absolutely, while here it gave it with the modification indicated, and it does not appear from the record that any equivalent instruction was given in its place.

             " You are not legally bound to acquit him (defendant) because you may not be entirely satisfied that the defendant, and no other person, committed the alleged offense." (See also, People v. Kerrick , 52 Cal. 446.)          The converse of the rule laid down in the above case is, that the jury must be entirely satisfied that the defendant committed the offense charged against him, and it was error to refuse the charge to that effect, as requested by the defendant.

  4. People v. Brown

    56 Cal. 405 (Cal. 1880)

             The foregoing instruction was erroneous. (The People v. Kerrick , 52 Cal. 446, and cases therein referred to.)          Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.