People v. Bagnell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The Court instructed the jury as follows: “ If you believe from the facts that the defendant, being a man of abandoned and malignant heart, (at the time and place aforesaid,) having no considerable provocation with the person whose name is stated in the indictment, then and there struck said person with a mallet sufficiently large to cause death, with the intention of inflicting upon…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The Court instructed the jury as follows: “ If you believe from the facts that the defendant, being a man of abandoned and malignant heart, (at the time and place aforesaid,) having no considerable provocation with the person whose name is stated in the indictment, then and there struck said person with a mallet sufficiently large to cause death, with the intention of inflicting upon the person of the deceased a severe wound, of which wound the deceased soon thereafter died, then I charge you that the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Currey, C. J.:
The defendant was tried for the alleged murder of Pollit Brousard, charged in the indictment to have been committed in March, 1S65, at the City and County of San Francisco. *411He was found guilty of the crime of manslaughter, and sentenced to the State Prison for the term of ten years.
I. On appeal the defendant maintains that the judgment cannot be upheld, because there was no evidence produced before the jury establishing the corpus delicti—that is, that the person called Pollit Brousard in the indictment was killed, and that his death was the result of criminal…
2Cited by4 opinions
- People v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- State v. HansenOregon Supreme Court · 1894
- People v. MorineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Matsuno v. The American Schooner ConcordDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1907