People v. Anderson (1872)

In People v. Anderson (1872) 44 Cal. 65, the jury was instructed, on the one hand, that the right of self-defense "'cannot be exercised in any case, or to any extent not necessary. The party making the defense is permitted to use no instrument and no power beyond what will prove simply effectual.'" (Id. at p. 68.) It was instructed, on the other hand, that if one "assaulted the defendant under such circumstances as to create a reasonable apprehension that he was about to suffer a great bodily injury, the defendant 'might safely act on such appearances, and kill the assailant, if absolutely necessary to avoid the apprehended danger, and the killing is justifiable, although it might afterward turn out that the appearances were false and there was in fact neither design to do him serious injury nor danger that it would be done.'" (Id. at p. 69.) The court reversed the judgment against the defendant, holding that the jury instructions might well have misled the jury. (Id. at pp. 69-70.) The Anderson court observed at the outset that the first instruction "was clearly erroneous." (People v. Anderson, supra, 44 Cal. at p. 68.) It further explained: "On the one hand the jury is told, in substance, that the danger must have been real, and that the right of self-defense cannot be exercised in any case or to any degree not necessary; and on the other hand, that it is sufficient if the danger was apparent, though it afterward turned out that in fact there was no actual danger and no necessity for the killing. These propositions are contradictory and wholly irreconcilable, and it is impossible to determine on which of them the jury acted. When the instructions on a material point are contradictory there should be a new trial." (Id. at p. 69.)