From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Monahan

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1881
59 Cal. 389 (Cal. 1881)

Opinion

         Department One

         Appeal from a judgment of conviction, and from an order denying a new trial, and from an order denying a motion in arrest of judgment in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Freelon, J.

         COUNSEL

          Charles B. Darwin, for Appellant.

          A. L. Hart, Attorney General, for Respondent.


         OPINION

         The Court:

         Defendant was convicted of robbery in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco.

         On the trial the Court, in its charge to the jury, used the following language: " It will only be necessary for me, I think, to read to you a definition or two from the Code, setting out what the offense here charged is. You can then apply the facts as you may find them to the definitions of the Code. The defendant is charged with robbery. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property. In this case it is charged that it was a five-dollar piece, I think, or four or five dollars, and a purse. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, or from his person. You have heard the testimony upon that point. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property from the possession of another, or from his person, or from his immediate presence, accomplished by means of force or fear. The fear necessary to constitute a robbery may be either the fear of an unlawful injury to the person or property of the person robbed, or to any relatives of his or members of his family; or the fear which constitutes robbery may be the fear of an immediate and unlawful injury to the person or property of any one in the company of the person robbed. That is inapplicable to the testimony in this case. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. I think, unless some other charge is asked, that that is all that is necessary to give to the jury."

         The above charge was calculated to confuse the jury, and it must have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to determine from it what was the correct definition of the crime with which the defendant was charged.

         Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

People v. Monahan

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1881
59 Cal. 389 (Cal. 1881)
Case details for

People v. Monahan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE v. JOHN MONAHAN

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1881

Citations

59 Cal. 389 (Cal. 1881)

Citing Cases

Sappenfield v. Main Street & Agricultural Park Railroad Co.

If it be claimed that the error in the instruction was cured by the first instruction given at the request of…

People v. Torres

It then appears the court later gave defendant's requested instruction, "as modified," in the language of…