People v. Murphy

California Court of Appeal Sep 27, 1962 No. Crim. 1832Published

Before: Griffin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant waives the right to a new trial based on a trial court's failure to rule on a pending motion for a new trial if the defendant fails to call the motion to the court's attention and affirmatively states there is no legal cause why judgment should not be pronounced.

Issues

Does a trial court's failure to rule on a motion for a new trial before pronouncing judgment entitle a defendant to an automatic new trial under Penal Code section 1202?
Can a defendant waive the right to have a motion for a new trial heard by failing to bring it to the court's attention and stating no legal cause exists for withholding judgment?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The doctrine of waiver is generally applicable to all the rights and privileges to which a person is legally entitled, whether secured by contract, conferred by statute, or guaranteed by the constitution”

“It is an established rule that a party cannot take advantage of the behavior of the trial court by withholding his objections or motions before the trial court, then asserting his rights on appeal after the verdict has been adverse to him.”

GRIFFIN, P. J.

Defendant and appellant Joseph Murphy was charged in an indictment with three violations of Penal Code, section 288, in that he committed lewd acts upon his 10-year-old stepdaughter. He was convicted on all three counts after a jury trial.

The events which formed the basis of the third count were observed through windows by defendant’s 17-year-old stepson, a neighbor and a police officer. The testimony of these witnesses was corroborated by that of the stepdaughter.

After the jury’s verdict was announced, on September 18, 1961, defendant’s counsel said:

“... at this time we would like to make an application for probation hearing and at this time I would like to enter a motion for new trial on all statutory grounds.”

Argument on the motion was set for hearing on the same day as the application for probation. The time for pronouncement of judgment was waived in order that a sexual psychopathy determination could be made. Following an examination by doctors, it was determined that defendant was a sexual psychopath but he was not a menace to the health and safety of others. He was remanded to the trial court for further hearing on January 5, 1962. At the hearing, defendant’s counsel argued that defendant should be granted probation, but no mention was made of the motion for a new trial. After this argument, the court asked defendant’s counsel if there was any legal cause why judgment should not be pronounced. Counsel answered, “No legal cause.” The court then sentenced

[887]

defendant to consecutive terms in state prison on counts one and two and a concurrent sentence on count three. The court made no reference to or disposition of the purported motion for a new trial. However, the judge, in his remarks, said that he thought that the trial was fairly conducted and the conviction was justified, and he particularly mentioned that the deputy district attorney prosecuting the case had been extremely fair in his presentation.

The only question raised on this appeal is: Under the circumstances, does the fact that the trial judge made no ruling on the purported motion for a new trial cause an automatic granting of a new trial because of Penal Code, section 1202, which provides:

People v. Murphy

AI Brief

GRIFFIN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief