## Facts

- A Chinese man was buried in a cemetery in Los Banos, California in February 1901.
- William Baumgartner and two other men believed the deceased had been buried with a large amount of money.
- At night, they dug into the grave, opened the coffin within the grave, and searched the body.
- They found only a ten-cent piece and a counterfeit dollar and then left.
- The corpse was not taken out of the coffin or removed from the grave.
- Baumgartner was prosecuted under a statute prohibiting unlawfully “disinterring or removing from its place of burial” any human body or part thereof.
- The trial court instructed the jury in a manner allowing conviction even if the body was not removed from the grave, and Baumgartner was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether digging into a grave, opening a coffin, and searching a corpse—without removing the body from the grave or coffin—constitutes “disinterring or removing from its place of burial” under the statute.
2. Whether jury instructions permitting conviction without proof of removal misstated the statute and required reversal.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
- The court held that “disinter” in the statute requires that the body (or part of it) be taken out of, or removed from, its place of burial.
- Because the body was never removed from the grave or coffin, the evidence did not satisfy the statutory element.
- The jury instruction allowing conviction without removal was erroneous and allowed conviction on a legally inadequate theory.

## Legal Principles

- In a penal statute, “disinter” means to exhume, unbury, or take a body out of the grave; mere disturbance or exposure of a body while it remains in the grave is not enough.
- Statutory language coupling “disinterring” with “removing from its place of burial” requires proof of removal from the place of interment.
- Criminal statutes are strictly construed; courts may not expand criminal liability beyond the statute’s clear terms through interpretation.
- A conviction cannot stand where the jury was instructed on a theory that omits an essential statutory element.

## Conclusion

The conviction was set aside because the charged statute required proof that the corpse (or part of it) was removed from its place of burial, and the defendant’s conduct—though involving grave intrusion and handling of the body—did not include removal; the trial court’s instruction allowing conviction without that element was reversible error.


People v. Baumgartner, 135 Cal. 72, 66 P. 974 (Cal. 1901)