Dеfendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of manslaughter and order denying his motion for new triаl, after trial by jury upon an information filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles County charging him with the crime of murder.
Appellant bаses his argument for a reversal of the judgment upon the general assertion “that the verdict is without support in the evidence”, and certain specified errors alleged to have been committed by the court in the giving of certain instructions, and also in the refusal to give certain instructions requestеd by defendant.
Appellant does not contend that the еvidence fails to support the prosecution’s claim that deceased came to his death as a result оf revolver shots fired by him, but urges that if the story as told by the eye-witnesses for the prosecution is to be accepted, hе should have been found guilty of murder instead of manslaughter. The еvidence might well have supported a verdict of guilty of murder, had the jury so found. This fact, however, did not deprive the jury of its right to take into consideration the evidence that all of the parties present in the cafe had been drinking, while sеveral were in a quarrelsome mood, insulting and threatening one another. Defendant testified that he himself was drunk and did not remember much about the shooting.
It was within the power of the jury to give such weight as it deemed proper to these factors in determining to what extent if at all they operated аs mitigating circumstances in the killing. (People v. Muhlner,
As to the second ground urged for a reversal, errors оf the court in giving and refusing instructions, we find no merit in this contention. The instruсtion on manslaughter, given as a part of the general instruction advising the jury as to the lesser offenses included within the greater charged, was given in the form that is generally used and has lоng had the approval of our courts. Cases cited by appellant' in support of his contention that no instruction should have been given as to manslaughter are not in point, for the jury had a right to have this definition of all of the degrees of homicide, and, as already pointed out, there is evidence in the record that might have been considered as justifying their verdict of the lesser degree of homicide, tо wit, manslaughter.
As to the instruction offered by defendant and refused by the court, relating to the. matter of ‘ ‘ accidental killing”, there is nothing in the evidence to justify the theory that the shooting of deceased was accidental. So far as this theory may be involved in the element of self-defense, the right of self-defense was fully covered in other instructions.
We find no merit in the points raised by appellant in his argument for a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed and order denying motion for new trial affirmed.
Stephens, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.