Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM R. McDOWELL, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1884-01-22
Citations: 64 Cal. 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM R. McDOWELL, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 467–469

Head Matter:
[In Bank.
January 22, 1884.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM R. McDOWELL, Appellant.
CBiamTAL Law—Evidencie—Relevancy. — Where there is evidence tending to show that the wounds inflicted upon the deceased might have been caused by a slung-shot, the testimony of a witness relating to the exhibition of such an implement by the defendant, subsequent to the commission of the crime and just prior to his arrest, is relevant and material.
Id.—Instbtjctions.—A charge to a jury must be considered as a whole, and altkougli.certain clauses considered separately may seem to assume the guilt of the defendant, if the charge as a whole presents the case properly to the jury, the judgment will not be reversed.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
The defendant was convicted of the murder of one Maggie O’Brien. There was evidence tending to show that the wounds inflicted upon the deceased might have been caused by a slung-shot, and the court allowed the prosecution to introduce the testimony of the witness Eva Hicks concerning an interview she had with the defendant the night before his arrest relating to a slung-shot which he then exhibited and said that “ they (referring to some third persons) had better keep their mouths shut or he would give them this,” referring to a slung-shot which he then produced and laid on the table. The remaining facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court, and in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Sharpstein.
Byron Waters, and O. S. Sparks, for Appellant.
Attorney-General Marshall, and R. E. Bledsoe, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Myrick, J.
The testimony of the witness Hicks as to the slung-shot in the possession of the defendant, and as to the statement made by defendant, was relevant and material, because there was evidence tending to show that the wounds inflicted upon the person of deceased might have been caused by such an implement. The statements of the witnesses Vfixon Rice and Cheatham, as to the place where the deceased was supposed to have been killed, were for the purpose, merely, of locating the spot, as foundation for further examination, and was so stated. While there are certain portions of the charge of the court below which, segregated, are objectionable, still when taken in connection with the context, as they must be, we think it cannot be fairly said that there was on the part of the court any invasion of the province of the jury.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Morrisox, C. J., Boss, J., McKee, J., McKihstby, J., and Thorxtox, J., concurred.