People v. Flanagan

Citations

• 60 Cal. 2
• 1881 Cal. LEXIS 529

Syllabus

<p>Self-defense — Murdeb — Instructions. — Upon a trial for murder the Court instructed the jury as follows: To justify the commission of a homicide upon the ground that it was necessary in defense of one’s property, it must he made to appear by a preponderance of the testimony that the person killed was manifestly endeavoring and intending to commit a felony. A bare trespass upon property does not justify or excuse a homicide. Held: The instruction was erroneous.</p> <p>Id.-—Id.—Id.—Every person has a legal right, in defense of his property, to prevent the commission of a felony; and is entitled to use whatever force may be necesaary—even to the extent of taking the life of a felonious aggressor.</p> <p>In such a case the justification is not made to depend upon a combination of intent and endeavor to commit a felony, as erroneously stated in the instruction; either will be sufficient to justify resistance for prevention. Id.—Id.—Id.—Abpabent Necessity.—If from all the evidence in the case the jury should find that the circumstances were such as to excite the fears of a reasonable man, and that the defendant, acting under the influence of such fears, killed the-aggressor to prevent the commission of a felony upon his person or property, he would not be criminally responsible for his death.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Id.—Burden op Pbooe—Reasonable Doubt.—The instruction was erroneous also, because it tended to deprive the defendant of the doctrine of reasonable doubt. It is a cardinal rule in criminal prosecutions that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecutor, and that if, upon the whole evidence, including that of the defense as well as that of the prosecution, the jury entertain a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled to the benefit of that doubt.</p>