Court Opinion

ID: 9735997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:39:25.052772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.262094
License: Public Domain

STONE, J.
I concur in affirming the judgment, but in doing so I desire to make it clear that I believe the trial court committed error by giving an instruction on general intent in addition to its correct instruction on the specific intent re*253quired to prove a violation of Penal Code section 476a. To my mind the error comes within the rationale of the recent Supreme Court cases, Cummings v. County of Los Angeles, 56 Cal.2d 258 [14 Cal.Rptr. 668, 363 P.2d 900], and Daun v. Truax, 56 Cal.2d 647 [16 Cal.Rptr. 351, 365 P.2d 407]. In these cases the trial court gave an instruction on the rule of negligence per se and also a modifying instruction stating the rule that an infant’s conduct is to be measured by his age, experience, intelligence and capacity. The Supreme Court held the instructions to be in conflict, rejecting the argument that there was no error if all of the instructions are considered together and each instruction is construed in the light of all the others. Although Cummings and Daun are civil cases concerned with the subject of negligence, the governing principle is applicable to jury instructions in all cases.
The reason the error is not reversible in this case is that proof of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming. Particularly significant is his failure to take the stand and testify on his own behalf or, for that matter, to present any evidence. A careful examination of the entire case discloses that the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
Brown, J., deeming himself disqualified, did not participate.