People v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jun 24, 1963 No. Civ. 26871Published

Before: Ford

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it lacked authority to grant the People's petition for an extraordinary writ to review a trial court's dismissal based on a plea of once in jeopardy, as the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and the People have no statutory right to appeal such a determination.

Issues

Whether the People may seek an extraordinary writ to review a trial court's dismissal based on a plea of once in jeopardy when no statutory right of appeal exists.
Whether a trial court acts in excess of its jurisdiction when it rules on a plea of once in jeopardy, even if the ruling is based on an erroneous legal concept.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court acted within the jurisdiction vested in it in ruling upon the motion of the defendant, even if it be assumed that it proceeded upon an erroneous concept of the law as to the sufficiency of the facts presented to it”

“To permit such recourse would give the People, in effect, the very appeal which the statutory provision (Pen. Code, § 1238) has denied to them.”

“With respect to each writ sought, the petition is denied.”

FORD, J.

In this proceeding the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari so that a review may be had of the action taken by the superior court with respect to a criminal prosecution. Petitioner also seeks the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate for the purpose of ordering the superior court to proceed with the trial of the defendant in the case of

People

Roy Robert Lauman.

On August 21, 1962, the trial of Lauman upon a charge of arson commenced in the superior court. A jury was impanelled and some witnesses thereafter testified. During the course of the day on August 22, 1962, a bailiff discovered that an arson report and an arrest report relating to the defendant had been left in the jury room when the room had been used for a discussion between a member of the fire department and one of the attorneys prior to the arrival of the jurors for the morning session. It appears that the documents were in the jury room during a period of time when the jurors could have had access to them. Statements therein as to the defendant were of a very prejudicial nature, A conference with respect to the matter was held by the trial judge and counsel in chambers. The defendant was not personally present at the conference. Thereafter the court was reconvened and the trial judge declared a mistrial on his own motion and transferred the case to the department of the presiding judge so that it might be reset for trial.

No consent to a declaration of a mistrial was expressed at that time by the defendant or his counsel.

On August 29, 1962, the defendant was permitted to file a document which set forth the additional plea that he had been “once in jeopardy for the offense charged” on August 21 and 22, 1962, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. (See Pen. Code, § 1017, subd. 4.) During the course of a hearing on August 31, 1962, the trial judge stated that that plea

[519]

was “rejected positively” because the facts were not such as to warrant it. The case was set for retrial on October 16, 1962.

People v. Superior Court

AI Brief

FORD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief