Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE v. FATOR.
Appellant was convicted after trial before a jury of having violated section 501 of the Vehicle Code (Stats.1935, p. 174). This appeal is from (1) the judgment and (2) the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Viewing the evidence most favorable to the prosecution (People v. Dukes, 90 Cal. App. 657, 659, 266 P. 558), the facts in the instant case are:
Shortly after midnight, December 22, 1935, Mr. Kiernan, the complaining witness, while walking in an easterly direction in the intersection of Sixth and Main streets in the city of Los Angeles, was injured by appellant's car precipitately backing into him. Appellant was driving the car and at the time was under the influence of an intoxicating liquor.
Appellant relies for reversal of the judgment on the following propositions:
First. The evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.
Second. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that contributory negligence on the part of the complaining witness constituted a valid defense.
As to appellant's first contention, we have examined the record and are of the opinion there was sufficient evidence considered in connection with such inferences as the jury may have reasonably drawn therefrom to sustain the findings of fact upon which the verdict of guilty was predicated.
Appellant's second contention is untenable. The law is well settled that contributory negligence is never a defense nor an excuse for crime, nor can it in any degree serve to purge an act otherwise constituting a public offense of its criminal character. People v. McKee, 80 Cal.App. 200, 205, 251 P. 675; People v. Leutholtz, 102 Cal.App. 493, 498, 283 P. 292.
The judgment and order are, and each is affirmed.
McCOMB, Justice pro tem.
We concur: CRAIL, P. J.; WOOD, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Cr. 2866.
Decided: June 02, 1936
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)