People v. Radovich

California Court of Appeal Jul 25, 1932 No. Docket No. 2191.Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting defense counsel from reading law books to the jury, and any potential prejudice from the judge's remarks was cured by subsequent jury instructions.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in prohibiting defense counsel from reading law books and citing specific cases during closing argument.
Whether the trial judge's remarks to counsel constituted prejudicial misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the point here presented may be said to resolve itself merely into a matter of discretion, we are satisfied that the discretion was not abused.”

“If his language was harmful to appellant we think the injury was undone by an instruction which he gave to the jury”

WORKS, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of robbery. He appeals from the judgment and from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial.

The case, on the evidence, was one merely of conflict, the quarrel being, between evidence tending to show an identification of appellant as a participant in the crime charged, several having been concerned in it, and evidence tending to prove an alibi.

While counsel for appellant at the trial—not the one now before us—was engaged in presenting his argument to the jury something occurred which impelled him to call for the court reporter, that functionary not being in attendance at the time. When the reporter appeared the following record was made: “Mr. Parsons: I refer to the case of

People

Molina,

126 Cal. 505, and I am reading from page 508 [59 Pac. 34, 35], The Court: No, you are not reading from it at all; you are referring to the case. Mr. Parsons: May I quote a paragraph of law? The Court: You may not; the court will attend to all of the law in this case. Mr. Parsons: I appreciate that, and I desire to refer to certain eases,

People

Preston

and

People

Law,

and other matters in which conversations have been had on evidence, and where it was later established that those people were innocent. I wish to go into those cases and describe them to the jury. The Court: You will not be allowed to do so, and your continued reference to those cases after the court has ruled is contemptuous. You should know that you should confine your argument to the jury in any case to the facts, and not refer to— Mr. Parsons: I have. The Court: Are you going to argue the facts in this case or are you trying to force the court— Mr. Parsons: Not at all; I am trying to eliminate— The Court: Mr. Parsons, if there is one more word from you that is not addressed to the jury on the facts I will adjudge you guilty of contempt of court.”

The trial judge was justified in preventing the course which counsel was endeavoring to pursue. It is generally improper for counsel to read from law books in addressing

People v. Radovich

AI Brief

WORKS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief