People v. Blackwell (1864) · DecisionDepot

People v. Blackwell

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1864Published

Before: Shafter

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding the indictment or the appointment of assistant counsel, it committed reversible error by precluding the defendant from cross-examining the prosecutrix regarding her potential retention of private counsel.

Issues

Whether an indictment must be set aside if it lacks a specific indorsement by the Grand Jury Foreman.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing assistant counsel to aid the District Attorney.
Whether the defendant has a right to cross-examine a witness regarding their retention of counsel to assist the prosecution.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It may be admitted that it is a matter of jurisdictional consequence that an indictment should in fact be presented by the Foreman of the Grand Jury and in their presence, but that the indictment in question was so presented will be presumed”

“Whether the State, through him, should be allowed to avail itself of additional professional aid, was a matter addressed to the discretion of the Court”

Synopsis

Presentment of Indictment. — It will be presumed that an indictment was presented to the Court by the Foreman of the Grand Jury, and in their presence? although that fact is not indorsed on it, if the record of the Court shows nothing to the contrary.

County Courts. — County Courts are Courts of general criminal jurisdiction, and as such all intendments are in favor of the regularity of their proceedings. Assistant Counsel for District Attorney.—Whether the District Attorney should be allowed associate counsel to aid him in the management of a case is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court, and where there is no abuse of that discretion the appellate Court will not interfere.

Evidence that Witness employed Associate Counsel.—If the District Attorney is assisted by associate counsel in the prosecution of a criminal case, counsel for the defense have a right to ask the prosecuting witness if he has employed such associate counsel.

By the Court, Shafter, J. Indictment for rape. Verdict—Guilty of assault with intent to commit a rape.

1. After arraignment the defendant moved the Court to set [67]aside the indictment on the ground “ that it does not show by the proper indorsement that it was presented to the Court by the Foreman of the Grand Jury and in their presence.” The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.

The indorsement was as follows:

“ Presented and filed in open Court, this 14th day of March, A. D. 1864.

“ H. E. Hall, County Clerk.”

The exception is not well taken. It may be admitted that it is a matter of jurisdictional consequence that an indictment should in fact be presented by the Foreman of the Grand Jury and in their presence, but that the indictment in question was so presented will be presumed, inasmuch as the record shows nothing to the contrary. The Crp(ifea¿^^gj{¿¿e Act prescribes no form of indorsement. -:Pu<^itity- ^oiJ»ts/%nder the late amendments to the Constituti|n and the Act of ¡April 20, 1863, passed in pursuance thereof/¿r^á, Chuffs;bfi-igenjeral criminal jurisdiction, and as such all| intendments are'in favor of the regularity of their proceediiWr" (People v. Cannor, 17 Cal. 361; People v. Robinson, 17 Cal. 368; People v. Hobson, 17 Cal. 424; People v. Lawrence, 21 Cal. 372.)

2. It appears from the record that the Court, by the request of the District Attorney, permitted other counsel to assist him at the trial. Before the trial commenced, however, the counsel of the appellant moved the Court to vacate the order. The motion was overruled and the defendant excepted.

It appears that the District Attorney had the active superintendence and management of the case during the progress of the trial. Whether the State, through him, should be allowed to avail itself of additional professional aid, was a matter addressed to the discretion of the Court, and there is nothing in the record showing that the Court abused its discretion in granting the request of the attorney. (Commomvealth v. Williams, 2 Cush. 582.)

3. On the cross examination of the prosecutrix, defendant’s counsel asked the witness if she had employed Budd & Carr [68]

People v. Blackwell

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief