People v. Murray

14 Cal. 159
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by65 cases

This text of 14 Cal. 159 (People v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Murray, 14 Cal. 159 (Cal. 1859).

Opinion

Field, C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.

The evidence in this case entirely fails to sustain the charge against tho defendant of an attempt to contract an incestuous marriage with his niece. It only discloses declarations of his determination to contract the marriage, his elopement with tho niece for that avowed purpose, and his request to ono of the witnesses to go for a magistrate to performthe ceremony. It shows very clearly tho intention of the defendant, but something more than mere intention is necessary to constitute the offense charged. Between preparation for the attempt and the attempt , itself, there is a wide difference. The preparation consists in devising or arranging the moans or measures necessary for the commission of the offense; the attempt is the direct movement to-1 ward the commission after the preparations are made. To illus-' irate: a party may purchase and load a gun, with the declared in[160]*160tention to shoot his neighbor; but until some movement is made to use the weapon upon the person of his intended victim, there is only preparation, and not an attempt. For the preparation, he may be held to keep the peace j but he is not chargeable with any attempt to kill. So in the present case, the declarations, and elopement, and request for a magistrate, were preparatory to the marriage; but until the officer was engaged, and the parties stood before him, ready to take the vows appropriate to the contract of marriage, it cannot be said, in strictness, that the attempt was made. The attempt contemplated by the statute must be manifested by acts which would end in the consummation of the particular offense, hut for the intervention of circumstances independent of the will of the party.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Related

State v. B. Boyd
2021 MT 323 (Montana Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Melton
821 S.E.2d 424 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2018)
State v. Jack Sawyer
2018 VT 43 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2018)
People v. Shah CA1/2
California Court of Appeal, 2016
People v. Weddington
246 Cal. App. 4th 468 (California Court of Appeal, 2016)
People v. Bogarin CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2016
Samuel Aaron Brabson v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2010
People v. Superior Court
157 P.3d 1017 (California Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Vigil
506 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D. New Mexico, 2007)
People v. Dillon
668 P.2d 697 (California Supreme Court, 1983)
People v. Staples
6 Cal. App. 3d 61 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Duncan v. State
183 A.2d 209 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1962)
Bridges v. State
126 S.E.2d 903 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
State v. Wilson
346 P.2d 115 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1959)
People v. Archibald
331 P.2d 69 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
State v. McCall
63 N.W.2d 874 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1954)
People v. Parrish
197 P.2d 804 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
People v. Pippin
25 N.W.2d 164 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1946)
State v. Jones
10 N.W.2d 526 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1943)
State v. Quick
19 S.E.2d 101 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Cal. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-murray-cal-1859.