People v. Woodward

45 Cal. 293
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1873
DocketNo. 10,021
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 45 Cal. 293 (People v. Woodward) 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. Woodward, 45 Cal. 293 (Cal. 1873).

Opinion

By the Court:

The defendant was convicted of the crime of an attempt to commit rape on the person of a child under the age of ten years; and has appealed from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. There was testimony tending to prove that several boys, one of whom was over the age of fourteen and’the others under that age, attempted to commit rape on the person of the child, and the defendant, who is of the age of seventeen years, stood by and aided and encouraged the other boys in the accomplishment of their purpose. On the other hand, the defendant, who testified as a witness in his own behalf, though [294]*294admitting that he was present, denied that he in any wise aided or encouraged the other boys in their unlawful design. The counsel for the defense asked the Court to charge the jury as follows:

“ If you are satisfied from the evidence that the defendant stood by at the time the offense is alleged to have been committed, but did no act to aid, assist, or abet the same, you should find the defendant not guilty.”

The Court refused to give the charge, and this ruling is assigned as error. We think tl'ie charge was improperly refused. If .the defendant “ did no act to aid, assist, or abet ” the perpetration of the crime, he is guilty of no violation of law from the mere fact that he was present. His presence, if unexplained, would be a circumstance tending to show his complicity in the transaction. But it was for the jury to decide from all the facts proved, whether he aided, assisted, or abetted the perpetration of the offense; and if they were satisfied that though present, he did not in fact aid, assist, or abet the perpetrators, it would have been their duty to acquit him. The defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed to that effect.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur to issue forthwith.

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

Related

In re David A. CA4/3
California Court of Appeal, 2014
St. John v. State
313 So. 2d 215 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
Fischer v. Elisabeth H.
20 Cal. App. 3d 323 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)
People v. Cressey
471 P.2d 19 (California Supreme Court, 1970)
People v. Gonzales
4 Cal. App. 3d 593 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Pugh v. State
169 So. 2d 27 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1964)
People v. Perez
337 P.2d 539 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Coverstone v. Davies
239 P.2d 876 (California Supreme Court, 1952)
People v. Palmer
173 P.2d 680 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
People v. Hughes
161 P.2d 285 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
People v. Torrillo
141 P.2d 472 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Hubbard v. State
1941 OK CR 47 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1941)
Anderson v. State
1939 OK CR 64 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1939)
People v. Jaggers
8 P.2d 206 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
People v. Sampsell
286 P. 434 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
People v. Baker
271 P. 765 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
People v. Wilson
269 P. 951 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
People v. Scanlon
243 P. 63 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
State v. Pickel
200 P. 316 (Washington Supreme Court, 1921)
People v. Ho Kim You
141 P. 950 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 Cal. 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodward-cal-1873.