Case ID: cal_93/html/0518-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20862.
    In Bank.
    March 3, 1892.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. MICHAEL AHERN, Appellant.
    Criminal Law—Instruction not Requested—Reasonable Doubt.— The defendant in a criminal prosecution cannot object that the court failed to instruct the jury as to the definition of a reasonable doubt, where he has not asked for such an instruction.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      J. D. Sullivan, for Appellant.
    
      Attorney-General Hart, for Respondent.
   The Court.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery, and appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, and we find no merit in the assignment of errors of law. If the defendant desired to have the jury instructed as to the definition of reasonable doubt, it was his duty to have asked for such instruction. (People v. Christensen, 85 Cal. 571.)

Let the judgment and order be affirmed.