People v. Ramirez
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Court of Sessions, San Joaquin County. Indictment for larceny. The instructions which it is stated, in the opinion of the Court, should have been given are so obviously correct, that it is useless to print them.
1Opinion of the CourtTerry, C. J.
Baldwin, J. concurring.
The first, third, fifth, and sixth, instructions asked by the defendant, were certainly pertinent and proper, and the refusal to give them was error.
The Attorney-General seeks to avoid the consequence of this error fey showing that these instructions were given in substance by the Court. But this is not sufficient. It is important to defendants in criminal cases that the principles of law which he invoke in their defense should be stated to the jury in clear and explicit terms, so that they may not be misunderstood. An instruction may be given in substance in language…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. HurleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by6 opinions
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- State v. MillainNevada Supreme Court · 1867
- Huber v. ShedoudyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- State v. O'ConnorNevada Supreme Court · 1876
- Truro v. PassmoreMontana Supreme Court · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.