## Facts

- Cordelia Botkin lived in San Francisco and had an affair with John P. Dunning, whose wife, Mary Elizabeth Dunning, lived in Dover, Delaware.
- A box of chocolates was mailed from San Francisco to Mary Elizabeth in Dover with a note expressing affection and other items in the package.
- Mary Elizabeth ate the chocolates and shared them with her sister, Ida Dean, and others; Mary Elizabeth and Ida died, while others became ill but survived.
- Chemical testing indicated the chocolates contained arsenic.
- The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence tying Botkin to the crime, including evidence of her obtaining arsenic under an alias, handwriting and correspondence evidence, and motive evidence based on jealousy and hostility toward Mary Elizabeth.
- Botkin was indicted and tried for murder in California on the theory that the lethal act occurred in California when the poisoned package was mailed, though death occurred in Delaware.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by giving jury instructions on murder and related matters that conflicted with established California law, including an instruction previously disapproved.
2. Whether the instructional errors were prejudicial in a murder case substantially proved by circumstantial evidence.
3. Whether California could prosecute a homicide where the defendant’s lethal act occurred in California but the victims died in another state.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the jury instructions included erroneous statements of law on material matters and could not be treated as harmless.
- The Attorney General conceded on appeal that reversal was required because the trial court used an instruction drawn from an earlier case that had been repudiated.
- The court proceeded on the premise that California had authority to try the case based on the in-state commission of essential acts, although reversal rested on instructional error.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction cannot stand when the jury is instructed on core criminal-law concepts in a way that misstates settled state law, particularly when the instruction has already been disapproved by the state’s highest court.
- Instructional error affecting the prosecution’s burden of proof, the reasonable-doubt standard, or the rules for evaluating circumstantial evidence is presumptively prejudicial in a serious felony case unless the record clearly shows no resulting harm.
- A state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over a homicide when essential acts constituting the offense occur within the state, even if the victim’s death occurs outside the state.

## Conclusion

The court set aside Botkin’s murder conviction because the jury was instructed using legally incorrect guidance on material issues, and the error was treated as prejudicial given the circumstantial nature of the proof; the case was remanded for a new trial while recognizing California’s authority to prosecute conduct initiated within its borders that results in death elsewhere.


People v. Botkin, 64 P. 286 (Cal. 1901)