People v. Ah Gee Yung

Citations

• 86 Cal. 144
• 24 P. 860
• 1890 Cal. LEXIS 989

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law — Homicide — Evidence — Burden of Proof — Mitigating Circumstances — Reasonable Doubt. — Under section 1105 of the Penal Code, casting upon the defendant charged with the commission of a homicide the burden of proving circumstances of mitigation, or that justify or excuse the homicide, after the prosecution has shown the commission of the act charged, the defendant is only bound to produce such evidence as will create in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt of his guilt of the offense charged, and he need not prove such circumstances by a preponderance of evidence; but it is incumbent upon the defendant to produce evidence sufficient to raise such reasonable doubt.</p> <p>Id,—Presumption of Criminal Intent — Rebutting Evidence.—An unlawful act is presumed to have been committed with unlawful intent, but the presumption may be rebutted, and is sufficiently rebutted and overcome when a reasonable doubt is raised as to the defendant’s guilt, and if a reasonable doubt is raised, the burden or onus is lifted, and the jury must presume an absence of such criminal intent.</p> <p>Id.—Instruction as to Burden of Proof — Language of Statute.— An instruction as to the burden of proof in a case of homicide, substantially in the language of section 1105 of the Penal Code, cannot be misleading or prejudicial, if the court in its charge emphasizes and clearly enforces the right of the defendant to have in every step of the case all reasonable doubts as to his guilt, or as to any fact essential to show guilt, resolved in his favor.</p> <p>Id.—Instruction as to Degrees of Offense — Assumption of Guilt — Construction of Charge. — An instruction as to the degrees of the offense of homicide, and stating that should the jury entertain a reasonable doubt as to which of the grades of crime named the defendant may be guilty of, if any, they will give the benefit of such doubt and acquit him of the higher offense, and can find him guilty of the lower offense only, is not