Case Name: THE PEOPLE v. FRANK JOHNSON
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1882-07-27
Citations: 61 Cal. 142
Docket Number: No. 10,747
Parties: THE PEOPLE v. FRANK JOHNSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 142–144

Head Matter:
[No. 10,747.
Department One.]
July 27, 1882.
THE PEOPLE v. FRANK JOHNSON.
Murder—Instruction—Justification—Record.—The Court refused to instruct the jury at the request of the defendant as follows: “If the accused was defending himself from an attack of the deceased that rendered it necessary for the protection of his own life that he should kill him, though he resolved to kill him before the fatal shot was fired, the killing was not murder.”
Held: As the transcript does not contain the evidence, it is not apparent that the Court erred in refusing this instruction.
Id.—Id.—Presumption—Character.—The Court also refused to instruct the jury at the request of the defendant that where no evidence of the character of the deceased is introduced his character is presumed to be of ordinary fairness in the traits involved in the crime with which he is charged; and that it is a fact to be considered by them in arriving at their verdict, in connection with all the other facts in the case.
Held: that there was no error—two of the justices putting the ruling on the ground that the instruction is substantially covered by another instruction given; and another on the ground that the instruction was erroneous.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of the County of Nevada. Caldwell, J.
H. A. Rearding and G. D. Blakey, for Appellant.
A. L. Hart, Attorney-General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Myrick, J.:
First—The defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury: " If the accused was defending himself from an attack of the deceased that rendered it necessary for the protection of his own life that he should kill him, though he resolved to kill him before the fatal shot was fired, the killing was not murder." It is enough to say, even if the instruction should be given in a proper case, the transcript does not contain the evidence; therefore, it is not apparent that the Court erred in refusing the instruction.
Second—The defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury that " where no evidence of the character of the defendant is introduced, his character is presumed to be of ordinary fairness in the traits involved in the crime with which he is charged, and that it is a fact to be considered by them in arriving at their verdict "in connection with all the other facts in the case."
The substantial point arrived at in this instruction is fully covered by other instructions given, viz., "that the defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by proof, and can not be convicted unless the jury are convinced by the evidence in the case, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he is guilty." He is presumed to he innocent, whatever be his character; he must be proved, by the evidence, tq.be guilty. His character-was not in evidence; the consideration of his character would not add to the strength of the presumption of innocence.
The other points made by 'appellant are answered by what is said above regarding the first point.
Judgment and order affirmed.
McKee, J., concurred in the judgment.