People v. Martinson
Before: Plummer
PLUMMER, J.
The defendants were convicted, after trial, upon an information charging them with acts tending to contribute to the delinquency of a minor child, interposed a motion in arrest of judgment, and also a motion for new trial, both of which were denied. The information in this ease is word for word with that set out in the ease of People v. Perfetti, ante, p. 609 [264 Pac. 318], save and except it charges the sale of "Jackass" brandy. All of the objections considered in the Perfetti case are ~presented in this case. No demurrer was filed and the objections are raised on a motion in arrest of judgment. The conditions are exactly the same as in the Perfetti case, and the authorities there cited and the reasons there stated apply, and upon the authority of the Perfetti case we hold that the objections sought to be raised upon this appeal are untenable, all having been waived by failure to demur.
In addition to presenting the same technical objections as were presented in the Perfetti case, the defendants upon motion for a new trial in this ease sought to raise the objection that the trial court was guilty of such misconduct as prevented the defendants from having a fair and impartial trial. It appears that the case of
People
v.
Perfetti
had been tried preceding the trial of the Martinson case, and that upon the day set for pronouncing sentence in the Perfetti case, the trial court, in pronouncing judgment, referred to the testimony of one of the witnesses in the Perfetti case, to wit, a witness by the name of Guenza, as' having been palpably false, and pointed out the particulars showing the falsity of such testimony, and referred to the attorneys in the Perfetti case in language indicating that intelligent attorneys ought to have known of the falsity of the defense. This is the substance of the trial court’s language in commenting upon the testimony in the Perfetti case. The affi
[619]
davit to which we have referred, omitting the remarks of the court, is in the following words and figures:
“State of California, )
t ss.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)