People v. Maringer

MUSSELL, J.

Defendant was charged with, and found guilty of, the murder of Mrs. Eugenia Howell. Life imprisonment was recommended in the verdict of the jury and defendant was, on April 5, 1949, sentenced to the state prison. On February 8, 1950, he filed a “Notice and Application for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. To set aside and vacate the judgment.” The district attorney filed an affidavit in opposition to the application and after a hearing thereon, at which time defendant was represented by the public defender, the petition was denied. This appeal, presented in propria persona, is from the order of the court denying the application.

In the proceedings before the trial court on his application for a writ, defendant contended that it was not established in the trial that a murder had been committed and in support

[588]

of his contention, filed and submitted an affidavit denominated “Statement of Pacts,” as follows:

“1 was convicted of murder in the first degree on circumstantial evidence.

“During my trial a photograph of the decedent was introduced by the State as evidence. This photograph bore marks, or discolorations on the throat of the decedent. The state contended that these marks, or discolorations, were resultant of manual strangulation.

“My attorney, during his attack on these marks cross examined a pathologist, one Dr. Baisinger, who had performed an autopsy on the decedent.

“During this cross examination this Dr. Baisinger admitted that he had returned a diagnosis of manual strangulation because the police of the city of Banning, California had told him that the decedent had been strangled.

“No other professional testimony regarding the cause of death was produced in this case.

“It is therefore my contention that, at no time during my trial, had it been established that a murder had been committed.”

In addition to the foregoing affidavit, defendant, in a separate document, claimed that he was deprived of his constitutional rights and of a fair and impartial trial; that the court erred by permitting the misconduct of the district attorney ; that the verdict is contrary to the evidence; that the trial court erred in its decision of questions of law and in the improper admission of evidence.