People v. Rongo

California Supreme Court Dec 28, 1914 No. Crim. No. 1861.Published

Before: Henshaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated by continuances necessitated by the district attorney's illness and court congestion, and that evidence of the victim's prior possession of money was admissible to establish a motive for robbery.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to dismiss for failure to bring the defendant to trial within sixty days.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for second-degree murder.
Whether evidence of the victim's possession of money days before the homicide was admissible to prove motive.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“So far as the record shows there was no objection made by defendant, on October 16, to setting the ease for trial on December 17, although that date was beyond the sixty-day limit. Consent will, therefore, be presumed.”

“Undoubtedly the defendant’s own story exculpates him, but it was for the jury to say whether or not that story should be believed.”

“The proof of the fact that the deceased was in the habit of carrying money upon his person; that he had about two hundred dollars upon his person a few days before the homicide; that he had none when the body was discovered, affords strong evidence”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HENSHAW, J.

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of twenty-five years. His motion for a new trial was denied and he took his appeal from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial to the court of appeals. Owing to a disagreement of the justices of that court the case was certified to this court.

Upon appeal the first proposition presented is that the court erred in refusing to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge on the ground that he had not been brought to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information. The information was filed on October 12, 1912. He was arraigned October 14, and the time to plead was continued to October 16, 1912, on which day he pleaded not guilty and the case was set for trial December 17, 1912. So far as the record shows there was no objection made by defendant, on October 16, to setting the ease for trial on December 17, although that date was beyond the sixty-day limit. Consent will, therefore, be presumed.

(People

Douglass,

100 Cal. 1, [34 Pac. 490] ;

People

Peter,

20 Cal. App. 151, [128 Pac. 415].) Defendant moved for a dismissal on the above grounds, on December 16th. It appeared, at the hearing of the motion, that the district attorney was sick and unable to appear in court. Evidence was taken as to his physical condition which showed this to be the fact and that some days would elapse before he could safely undertake the trial of the case. A further continuance became necessary because the district attorney had no deputy and no attorney was available to take up the prosecution who had any knowledge of the facts. The court called attention to the fact that other cases were set for trial that would occupy all of December and would run into January. Prom the condition of the calendar and

[74]

engagements of the court the judge stated that January 20, 1913, was “the earliest date this case could be continued to.” The case was finally set for January 21st. No motion was made to dismiss after December 16th and defendant went to trial on January 21st without further objection. The order was not error.

People v. Rongo

AI Brief

Synopsis

HENSHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief