Ex parte Cage
Synopsis
When Writ of Mandate Will Not Issue.—A writ of mandate will not be issued to compel a Court to render a judgment of acquittal in a ' criminal case.
Defense of Once Having Been in Jeopardy.—If a prisoner is put on his trial, and the jury disagree, and the term is adjourned without anything of record to show that the jury was discharged, and if the prisoner is entitled to his discharge on account of such facts, he must avail himself of such defense when he is put on his trial again, and by appeal, if judgment should he rendered against him.
By the Court: Upon application for writ of mandamus to the Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial District.
[249]If the facts disclosed in this application as having occurred at the trial of the prisoner entitle him in point of law to a discharge from further prosecution upon the indictment (a question which we do not propose to determine now), they should be availed of by motion, or other proper application to the District Court, whenever the prisoner may hereafter be actually put upon his trial, and the action of the Court in that respect may be reviewed here on appeal by the prisoner from the judgment, should one be rendered against him.
A writ of mandamus, however, cannot be availed of for the purpose of directing the Court to render the particular judgment desired by the prisoner.
Motion denied.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)