DocketNumber: No. 20,031
Citation Numbers: 66 Cal. 278
Judges: Morrison
Filed Date: 12/29/1884
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
—On the eleventh day of August, 1884, a judgment of conviction was entered against the defendant by the Superior Court of Dos Angeles county. The charge contained in the information was one of murder, perpetrated by the felonious killing with premeditation and malice aforethought of one Gabriel Chavez. The appeal is from the judgment, and also from the order of the court denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
In the evening of the twentieth day of June, 1884, the defendant and the deceased were seen in a wagon driven by the defendant, and proceeding from the city of Dos Angeles in the direction of what is called the “ Verdugo Canon,” the place of residence of the defendant. The defendant was driving, and, as the witness Mirandetti states, “ was looking a little under the influence of liquor; not very much, but you can’t tell, sometimes. ® * * The deceased wanted to stop, but Martinez wanted to go.” The witness Rosa Bernero states that the defendant and deceased stopped at her grocery and liquor store, and bought four or five dollars’ worth of groceries, which were paid for by the deceased. Chavez exhibited a small sum of money while there, and spoke of having a twenty-dollar gold piece. The witness says “ they each had a drink in my place, but did not look as if they had been drinking.” This was quite late in the afternoon or early in the evening, between 5 and 6 o’clock. Charles Grassen testified that he paid the deceased $10 in silver and $20 in gold, about 4 o’clock p. M. on the twentieth of June, at the freight depot, about a quarter of a mile from the residence of Mrs. Bernero. Frank Oakley, the next witness called for the prosecution, swore out a warrant for the arrest of the defendant, and went out with Officer Berry to make the arrest. There was a lengthy conversation between the defendant and the officer, in the course of which “ the defendant appeared to be very nervous, and he denied it, until at last we got near the place where the murder had been committed, when Barry said 1 they heard three shots,’ whereupon the prisoner remarked, £ That is impossible—there was but one. I fired only one.’ Berry then asked: ‘ Why did you kill him ? ’ and the defendant
To the introduction of this statement in evidence, defendant objected, and, the objection being overruled, exception was taken. This is the only exception in the case. In the case of People v. Taylor, 59 Cal. 640, this court held that an admission made by the defendant before a coroner’s jury was admissible in evidence against him. The court there uses the following language: “ The statement having been voluntary, the evidence was admissible, whether made in a judicial proceeding or any other.” There was no error in admitting in evidence the statement made by the defendant in this case.
Doctor Nadeau, the physician who made the post m.ortem examination on the body of Chavez, says that the ball ranged downward from the second to the fifth rib, and from that fact the prosecution argues that defendant’s statement that “ Chavez was standing higher upon the ground than himself when the shot was fired,” is false. Defendant denies that he took or saw any money on the person of the deceased, although it is shown by the testimony of several other witnessés that the deceased had money just before he was killed, and that none was found on the body. The defendant said nothing about the killing until he was arrested, and manifested much indifference about the
The same may be said of this case. No fault whatever is found with the instructions of the court, and it may be remarked that the law of the case was fully and fairly stated by the court to the jury. The killing was admitted by the defendant; the evidence shows that the place of killing was a secluded one, and the time about dark. The judgment and order are affirmed.
Myrick, J., Sharpstein, J., Thornton, J., McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.