People v. Levison

Citations

• 16 Cal. 98
• 1860 Cal. LEXIS 175

Syllabus

<p>On trial under an indictment for receiving stolen goods, the Court instructed the jury “That a guilty knowledge, on the part of the defendant, is essential to the constitution of the offense. This may be shown either directly, by the evidence of the principal offender, or circumstantially, by proving that the defendant bought them very much under their value, or denied their being in his. possession, or the like:” Beld, that the charge is erroneous in this, that it asserts as a conclusion of law, that if the defendant purchased the goods at a price much below their value, or if he denied that he had them, or if the thief swore defendant received them, then, in either case, the guilty knowledge was proved; that this is not law; that either one of these^facts is a circumstance of guilt, but does not alone constitute conclusive proof of guilt.</p> <p>In criminal cases, the Court should, as a general rule, instruct the jury hypothetically, and not assign a conclusive effect to circumstances, or assume that such circumstances were proven. In the absence of opposing proof they are sometimes conclusive, but not generally; and it should always be left to the jury to determine whether those circumstances are established.</p> <p>In criminal cases, if the instructions to the jury are erroneous under any and every state of facts, the Supreme Court will review them, even though there bo no statement of facts—because it necessarily appears that the Court erred to the prejudice of defendant.</p> <p>But where the instructions may he. correct under any state of facts, then the Supreme Court presumes in favor of the judgment below, and will not reverse it when there is no statement of facts or bill of exceptions—because the appellant must show affirmative error.</p>