People v. Mort
29 Cal. Rptr. 650, 214 Cal.App.2d 596, 1963 Cal. App. LEXIS 2650 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to jury instructions on his or her theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible that evidence may appear, as assessing witness credibility is the exclusive province of the jury.
Facts:
- On December 31, 1962, New Year’s Eve, in a crowded tavern, the victim was standing behind the defendant, Marovich, who was seated at the bar.
- The victim ordered drinks which were placed on the bar in front of Marovich.
- As the victim reached over Marovich's shoulder to retrieve the drinks and pass them to her friends, Marovich struck her in the face with a beer bottle.
- The blow caused cuts to the victim's forehead, nose, and cheek.
- Marovich testified that he was struck from the back or side by someone he did not see and instinctively struck out with his fists as he was knocked off balance.
- Marovich emphatically denied striking the victim or any woman.
Procedural Posture:
- Marovich was convicted after a jury trial of the crime of assault with a deadly weapon, violation of Penal Code section 245, in the trial court.
- Marovich appealed the judgment of conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
- Marovich filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis as an original proceeding in the California Court of Appeal, alleging suppression of evidence by the district attorney.
- The California Court of Appeal set the hearing on the writ of error coram nobis at the same time as the hearing on the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by refusing to give a jury instruction on self-defense when the defendant's testimony, however incredible, provides some evidence to support that theory?
Opinions:
Majority - STONE, J.
Yes, a trial court commits reversible error by refusing to give a jury instruction on self-defense when the defendant's testimony, however incredible, provides some evidence to support that theory. The court held that Marovich was entitled to an instruction on self-defense based on his testimony that he instinctively struck out with his fists after being surprised by a blow to his head. Citing People v. Carmen, the court reiterated that a defendant is entitled to instructions on their theory of the case, no matter how weak the evidence, and that the credibility of such evidence is exclusively for the jury. The trial court had correctly given an instruction on assault with hands or fists based on Marovich's testimony, which further underscored the necessity of a corresponding self-defense instruction. Regarding Marovich's petition for writ of error coram nobis, the court denied it, finding that the substance of the affidavits from the two uncalled witnesses either added nothing or contradicted Marovich's own trial testimony, thus not constituting suppression of evidence or a denial of due process. The court also found no error in the admission of photographs of the victim's face, as they were not gruesome and had probative value in corroborating the victim's testimony.
Concurring - Conley, P. J., and Brown (R.M.), J.
Concurred.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that judges must instruct juries on every material question supported by any evidence, regardless of how improbable that evidence may seem. It clarifies that the judge's role is not to weigh the credibility of evidence for a defense theory, but to present all legally relevant theories to the jury, whose exclusive province it is to determine facts and credibility. The decision underscores the importance of a defendant's right to present their theory of defense, preventing courts from essentially directing a verdict by omitting crucial instructions. This precedent serves as a safeguard against judicial encroachment on the jury's fact-finding role and ensures fairness in trials.
