People v. Crandall (100 Cal. App. 785, 1929)

HOUSER, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of involuntary manslaughter, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

From the evidence the jury would have been justified in concluding that the essential facts in the case were that as defendant was operating an automobile southerly on a public thoroughfare at an intersection of said thoroughfare with another public highway, by reason of the failure of defendant to exercise due care and circumspection in the premises, the automobile operated by him collided with another automobile traveling in a northerly direction and thereby caused the death of two of the occupants of the latter automobile.

The first two points presented by appellant relate to the refusal of the trial court to give to the jury, at the request of defendant, an instruction to the effect that before defendant could be found guilty of the charge of manslaughter the jury must be “satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased ensued as a direct and. proximate result of the reckless and gross neglect of the defendant.” Although with some minor criticisms, not affecting the intent of the offered instruction, it may be said that defendant was entitled to have the substance of it given to the jury, on examination of the record herein it is noted that the principle of law contained in said proffered instruction was fully covered by other instructions given to the jury at the request of the prosecution—from which it follows that the point made by appellant is not well taken.

Appellant next complains that the trial court refused to give to the jury the following instruction requested by defendant:

“Ton are instructed that it is not unlawful under the laws of the state of California for the driver of an automobile to operate the same at a speed greater than fifteen miles per hour in traversing an intersection of highways when the driver’s view is obstructed, provided he operates and drives the same at a careful and prudent speed, not greater than is reasonable and proper having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of highway, and does not drive or operate said vehicle on such highway at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person.”

In part, subdivision (b) of section 113 of the California Vehicle Act (Stats. 1923, p. 517, as variously amended), is as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section and except in those instances where a lower speed is specified in this act, it shall be lawful for the driver of vehicle to drive the same at a speed not exceeding the following :