Court Opinion

ID: 9864512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 13:39:35.262754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:42.131224
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Upon petition for rehearing the court’s attention is called to an inaccurate statement to the effect that a controversy between the defendant and Cruz “was conceded”. It appears that defendant did deny this dispute. It was, however, satisfactorily established. Alfred Gilder, the owner of the ranch upon which the homicide occurred, referred to the matter. This controversy was important only as tending to show enmity on the part of the defendant toward Cruz, which the jury was entitled to assume may have been transferred to the deceased when he interfered with defendant’s attack upon Cruz. One further circumstance appears in the evidence which might furnish a motive for defendant’s ill will toward the deceased. It appears the mother of the deceased had brought suit in the justice’s court of Sebastopol against the defendant. He admitted this fact, but insisted that this suit caused no enmity against the deceased. The evidence or malice is sufficient upon which to support the verdict.
The appellant also complains of the disposition of his charge of prejudicial error on the part of the trial court in refusing to give certain instructions to the jury. Several *136instructions on the subject' of manslaughter appear in the record which are indorsed by the judge, “Refused, covered by other instructions.” There is nothing in the transcript indicating which party offered these instructions. Our opinion therefore correctly states that, “No such instruction appears from the record to have been offered by the defendant.” The appellant complains of this statement and now claims to have offered these rejected instructions. In the language of our opinion, this court was careful not to say the defendant did not offer the instructions. All that we said is that it does not appear from the record that the defendant offered them.  The rule is firmly established that error in the refusal to give instructions is not available to a defendant on appeal unless the record affirmatively shows they were offered by him. (8 Cal. Jur. 539, see. 544; People v. Baker, 64 Cal. App. 336, 343 [221 Pac. 654] ; People v. Hettick, 126 Cal. 425, 429 [58 Pac. 918]; People v. Vukojevich, 25 Cal. App. 459, 464 [143 Pac. 1058] ; People v. Olds, 86 Cal. App. 130 [260 Pac. 321].)
With the modification of the opinion above suggested, the petition for a rehearing is denied.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on October 23, 1931.
Langdon, J., dissented.