People v. Miller

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

Following conviction by a jury upon a charge of manslaughter resulting .from recklessly driving an automobile, and the denial of a motion for a

[537]

new trial, the defendant asked for probation, which was also denied. He appealed from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

Appellant has minutely reviewed the evidence in his briefs, and while it is stated therein that he entertains an “honest feeling that the evidence as it appears in the reporter’s transcript will not support the verdict”, this point is not seriously urged. There is direct evidence that he was driving his machine at the rate of about fifty miles per hour, that he collided with another automobile occupied by several persons, and that the impact fatally injured one of the latter. There was testimony tending to show that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but this is denied. An exhaustive recital of the evidence is not necessary, since the rule applicable to such cases is recognized by appellant that where the evidence is contradictory the jury are the sole judges of the credit to be given the various witnesses.

Numerous instances of colloquies between the trial court and defendant’s counsel are criticised as improper, and are characterized as a “running debate throughout the trial”. Considering the length of the trial such instances were but momentary and infrequent.

People

v.

Fritz,

54 Cal. App. 137 [201 Pac. 348], cited by appellant, is not controlling. It is admitted in the instant case that no single remark was seriously detrimental, and appellant has not attempted to indicate in what respect the remarks of the court were or could have been prejudicial to his interest. Hence they do not furnish ground for reversal.

(People

v.

Bruno,

49 Cal. App. 372 [193 Pac. 511].) Remarks of the court which during its rulings add nothing to the force or effect of its action are not addressed to the jury, nor do they invade their province.