Legal Opinion

People v. Ah Fung

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1860PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from the Sixteenth District. Indictment for murder. On the trial, Lew Fung was introduced as a witness for the prosecution, and testified substantially as stated in syllabus. The place of the attack, as related by him, was three or four miles from Campo Seco. After escaping, the witness ran about one-half of a mile, when he met two Americans, to whom he told what happened, and one of them went on with witness to Jackson.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Sixteenth District. Indictment for murder. On the trial, Lew Fung was introduced as a witness for the prosecution, and testified substantially as stated in syllabus. The place of the attack, as related by him, was three or four miles from Campo Seco. After escaping, the witness ran about one-half of a mile, when he met two Americans, to whom he told what happened, and one of them went on with witness to Jackson. Witness never saw Tung Hoy afterwards, and there was no proof clearly identifying the body of a Chinaman—supposed to be that of Tung Hoy, and for killing whom…

1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.

Baldwin, J. concurring.

On the trial of this case, the Court instructed the jury that if the evidence of one of the witnesses was true, the defendants were guilty of murder in the first degree. This witness did not see the deceased after the commission of the offense, and his testimony did not establish the homicide. It is contended that there was no controversy upon that point, and that the Court was correct in assuming the existence of the fact. We do not know, nor can we ascertain, what particular matters were controverted before the jury, but we think the Court had no right to assume the…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. YbarraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Territory of Arizona v. KayArizona Supreme Court · 1889

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API