People v. Rodrigo
Citations
- 69 Cal. 601
- 11 P. 481
- 1886 Cal. LEXIS 694
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law — Setting aside Information.—Mere irregularities or in-formalities before the committing magistrate, which do not deprive the defendant of any substantial right, will not warrant the quashing of an information.</p> <p>Id.—Preliminary Examination—Omission to Examine Witness as to his Business. — The omission of the district attorney and magistrate, on the preliminary examination, to ask a witness for the prosecution his profession or business is not prejudicial to the defendant.</p> <p>Id. —Evidence. —Reputation of Defendant. —The defendant was prosecuted for an assault with a deadly weapon. On the trial, a witness was asked to state the general reputation of the defendant for peace and quietness in the county, so far as he knew. The witness had not stated that he lived in the county or knew the general reputation of the defendant therein. The court excluded the evidence. Held, that the ruling of the court was proper.</p> <p>Id.—Deadly Weapon Defined.—The court instructed the jury that a deadly weapon “is any weapon or instrument by which death maybe produced, or would be likely to be produced, when being used in the manner in which it may appear it was used in the affray. The jury are the judges as to whether the weapon was or was not a deadly weapon.” Held, that the instruction was correct.</p> <p>Id.—Instructions—Reasonable Apprehension of Injury.—The court refused to instruct the jury that they should acquit the defendant if they entertained a reasonable doubt that he made the assault under a reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm. Held, that the refusal was proper, as the defendant could not justify the assault unless the use of a deadly weapon was necessary to prevent the injury.</p> <p>Ip.—Burden of Proof—Reasonable Doubt.—In such a prosecution, if the defendant relies upon no separate, distinct, or independent fact, but confines his defense to the original transaction on which the charge is founded, with its accompanying circumstances, t
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- 18-month suspension for engaging in sexual relationship with mentally and emotionally impaired client in connection with representation to obtain disability benefits
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McKinstry
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.