People v. Chung Lit (1861) · DecisionDepot

People v. Chung Lit

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1861Published

Before: Cope

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant waives the right to challenge a juror's alienage by failing to do so before the juror is sworn, and the court presumes that jury instructions were given in writing absent evidence to the contrary.

Issues

Whether a defendant may challenge a juror's alienage for the first time on a motion for a new trial.
Whether a judgment must be reversed if the record fails to affirmatively show that jury instructions were given in writing.
Whether the defendant's excluded declarations constituted admissible res gestae.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The objection that one of the jurors was an alien could not be taken for the first time upon the motion for a new trial.”

“The presumption is that they were given in the manner provided by law, and in the absence of anything to the contrary, this presumption must prevail.”

“The declarations of the defendant, Chung Lit, were properly excluded. They were no part of the res gestee”

Synopsis

The objection, in a criminal case, that one of the jurors was an alien, cannot be taken after verdict on motion for new trial—even though the defendant be ignorant of the fact of alienage until after verdict. Defendant must examine the juror on the point, and exercise his right of challenge.

The record of a trial for murder need not show affirmatively that the charge to the jury was in writing. The presumption is that the charge was given in the manner required by law, and in the absence of anything to the contrary, this presumption must prevail.

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. concurring.

The objection that one of the jurors was an alien could not be taken for the first time upon the motion for a new trial. The defendants might have examined him upon the subject, and exercised their right of challenge before he was sworn, but having failed to do this, they must suffer the consequences of their own neglect. The authorities upon the question are collected by Graham & Waterman, in their work on New Trials. There is some conflict in the cases, but the weight of authority is largely in favor of the rule as we have stated it.

We cannot reverse the judgment upon the ground that the record does not show that the instructions of the Court were given in writing. The presumption is that they were given in the manner provided by law, and in the absence of anything to the contrary, this presumption must prevail.

The declarations of the defendant, Chung Lit, were properly excluded. They were no part of the res gestee, and we do not see upon what principle they could have been admitted.

The other points made are without merit. The judgment is affirmed, and the Court below will designate a day for the execution of its sentence.

People v. Chung Lit

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief