People v. Moncrief

California Court of Appeal

People v. Moncrief

317 P.2d 999, 155 Cal. App. 2d 334, 1957 Cal. App. LEXIS 1288

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 20, 1957

DocketCrim. No. 3357

StatusPublished

This text of 317 P.2d 999 (People v. Moncrief) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Moncrief, 317 P.2d 999, 155 Cal. App. 2d 334, 1957 Cal. App. LEXIS 1288 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

DRAPER, J.

Defendant was tried on a charge of the murder of his wife. The jury found him guilty of the included offense of manslaughter, and he appeals from the judgment. Appellant argues only fact issues.

There was evidence that on the day of the wife’s death she and her husband had two fights involving the exchange of blows. On the second of these occasions., appellant pushed off one who attempted to intervene, resumed striking his wife, and “she went out the window.” The window was closed, and her body shattered the glass. She fell about 20 feet to a hard surface, and died as a result of the injuries thus incurred. There was testimony that appellant had threatened to kill her on other occasions and that, after she fell, appellant cursed her and expressed a hope for her death. There was contra[335]*335dictory testimony and appellant testified that decedent fell over the low window sill without being pushed or struck. We are satisfied that the record contains substantial evidence that Mrs. Monerief was pushed through the window by appellant. The jury could have found in accordance with appellant’s version, but that issue was for the jury to resolve (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 [104 P.2d 778]). Appellant also argues that all the eyewitnesses were intoxicated, and therefore not to be believed. But here, too, there is a conflict of evidence.

Appellant also argues that the trial judge was required to grant a new trial in the light of the evidence. The cases cited for this novel view (Estate of Morey, 147 Cal. 495 [82 P. 57], and Bates v. Howard, 105 Cal. 173 [38 P. 715]) do not at all support it, and the latter decision is squarely opposed to appellant’s argument. No appeal was taken from the order denying new trial, but the order clearly would be affirmed if appealed from.

Judgment affirmed.

Kaufman, P. J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DRAPER, J.

Defendant was tried on a charge of the murder of his wife. The jury found him guilty of the included offense of manslaughter, and he appeals from the judgment. Appellant argues only fact issues.

There was evidence that on the day of the wife’s death she and her husband had two fights involving the exchange of blows. On the second of these occasions., appellant pushed off one who attempted to intervene, resumed striking his wife, and “she went out the window.” The window was closed, and her body shattered the glass. She fell about 20 feet to a hard surface, and died as a result of the injuries thus incurred. There was testimony that appellant had threatened to kill her on other occasions and that, after she fell, appellant cursed her and expressed a hope for her death. There was contra[335]*335dictory testimony and appellant testified that decedent fell over the low window sill without being pushed or struck. We are satisfied that the record contains substantial evidence that Mrs. Monerief was pushed through the window by appellant. The jury could have found in accordance with appellant’s version, but that issue was for the jury to resolve (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 [104 P.2d 778]). Appellant also argues that all the eyewitnesses were intoxicated, and therefore not to be believed. But here, too, there is a conflict of evidence.

Appellant also argues that the trial judge was required to grant a new trial in the light of the evidence. The cases cited for this novel view (Estate of Morey, 147 Cal. 495 [82 P. 57], and Bates v. Howard, 105 Cal. 173 [38 P. 715]) do not at all support it, and the latter decision is squarely opposed to appellant’s argument. No appeal was taken from the order denying new trial, but the order clearly would be affirmed if appealed from.

Judgment affirmed.

Kaufman, P. J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

317 P.2d 999, 155 Cal. App. 2d 334, 1957 Cal. App. LEXIS 1288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moncrief-calctapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack