People v. Sherman

HART, J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment presented to and filed in the superior court of Yolo County charging him with the crime of “criminal syndicalism,” as said crime is defined by an act of the legislature of 1919, entitled “An act defining criminal syndicalism and sabotage, proscribing certain acts and methods in connection therewith . . . and providing certain penalties . . . therefor.” (Stats. 1919, p. 281.)

He appeals from the judgment and the order denying him a new trial.

The transcript on appeal was filed May 25, 1922, the cause was placed on the calendar of the term of this court commencing on September 5, 1922, and the parties and their attorneys were previously and in due time notified thereof.

On the day last named the cause was regularly called for hearing and argument, but there was no appearance in behalf of the defendant. Nor was there then, or has there since been, a brief filed in this court, in support of the

[101]

appeal, and, the legal time for filing a brief having long since expired, the cause, upon the motion of the attorney-general, was submitted upon the record.

The record is voluminous, and, while we have not, as we are not required to do where the state of the appeal is such as it is herein, examined the record with the care or circumspection requisite in cases where the appeals are supported by argument, oral or written, we are justified in saying, from such examination of the case as we have given it, that we have not discovered any violation of the fundamental rights of the accused and that he seems to have been accorded a fair trial.

The indictment, following, substantially, the language of the statute, charges the defendant with the commission of acts declared by subdivisions 3 and 4 of section 1 of said statute as constituting criminal syndicalism, there being two counts in the indictment, the one charging the acts specified in subdivision 3 and the other the acts specified in subdivision 4. The verdict was based entirely on subdivision 3.

The evidence, of which a large amount was brought into the record, is of the same general character as that presented in the case of