People v. Payne
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Tuolumne. Indictment and trial for murder, and conviction in the second degree. At the trial, the counsel of defendant asked the Court to give the jury the following instruction in writing: “ If the defendant was in imminent danger of great bodily injury from the deceased at the time of the killing, then they are to find him not guilty.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of Tuolumne. Indictment and trial for murder, and conviction in the second degree. At the trial, the counsel of defendant asked the Court to give the jury the following instruction in writing: “ If the defendant was in imminent danger of great bodily injury from the deceased at the time of the killing, then they are to find him not guilty.” Which instruction the Court gave, with this verbal qualification : “ That the jury must take into consideration the intent of the defendant in going to the place of the alleged killing.”…
1Opinion of the Court
Burnett, J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.
From all the testimony taken together, it would seem clear that Stone and Vaughn, went with the pre-determination to remove the posts by force, if necessary. It is equally clear, that Payne went upon the ground determined to prevent their re*343moval by force, if required. Whatever may have been the merits of the respective claims of each, party to the land in dispute, the posts were the admitted persbnal property of Payne, and Stone had no right to remove them and appropriate them to his own use.…
2Cited by22 opinions
- People v. SanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- State v. PotterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- Sims v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1896
- State v. RiniSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1922
- People v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.