People v. Barbera

California Court of Appeal Jun 3, 1926 No. Docket No. 1312.Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the assignment of a case to a specific department of the superior court is a matter of procedural convenience rather than jurisdiction, and that the defendant failed to establish a sufficient foundation to admit prior testimony or demonstrate that the corroboration requirements of Penal Code section 1108 applied to his prosecution.

Issues

Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the case was heard in a department not specifically designated for Juvenile Court Law cases.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit testimony from a preliminary examination.
Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that corroboration of the minor's testimony was not required under Penal Code section 1108.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whether sitting separately or together, the judges of the superior court hold but one and the same court, and the jurisdiction they exercise in any cause is that of the court and not the individual”

“We conclude that, at most, the record discloses an irregularity in this matter and not a want of jurisdiction”

“It was incumbent upon him to make a showing satisfactory to the trial court that either of these preliminary conditions existed before offering the evidence.”

LANGDON, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a verdict of a jury finding him guilty of a

[279]

misdemeanor, to wit, a violation of section 21 of the Juvenile. Court Law (Stats. 1915, p. 1225), and also from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial.

The first point argued upon the appeal is that the trial court was without jurisdiction. This objection was not made at the trial and is presented for the first time upon appeal. It is based upon the following facts: The trial was had in department eleven of the superior court, state of California, in and for the city and county of San Francisco, and it is contended that this department and the judge presiding therein are not those designated by the judges of the superior court to hear cases coming under the Juvenile Court Law, in accordance with the provisions of section 16 of said law. Said section 16 provides: “The Superior Court . . . shall exercise the jurisdiction conferred by this Act.” As a matter of convenience in procedure, it is also provided that the judges of the superior court, in counties or cities and counties having more than one judge, shall designate, annually, one or more of their number, whose duty it shall be to hear all cases coming under said act.

If it be true that, this cau&e should more properly have been heard in another department of the superior court, the record discloses, at most, an irregularity.

(Graziani

Denny,

174 Cal. 176, 179 [162 Pac. 397];

Nickel

State,

179 Cal. 126,129 [175 Pac. 641].) Whether sitting separately or together, the judges of the superior court hold but one and the same court, and the jurisdiction they exercise in any cause is that of the court and not the individual, under article VI, section 6, of the constitution

(Graziani

People v. Barbera

AI Brief

LANGDON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief