People v. Colson (1875) · DecisionDepot

People v. Colson

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1875 No. No. 10,157Published

Before: Wallace

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court's decision to sustain a challenge for implied bias against a juror is not subject to exception, and that a denial of a request for additional time to move for a new trial is presumed correct absent a record to the contrary.

Issues

Whether the trial court's decision to sustain a challenge for implied bias against a juror is subject to exception.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request for further time to move for a new trial.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the action of the Court in sustaining such a challenge is not the subject of an exception.”

“Upon what grounds the application was based, or by what circumstances it was supported, the record is entirely silent, and the necessary intendment here is that the action of the Court below was correct.”

Synopsis

Challenge to Jltbob.—The action of the Court in sustaining the challenge to a juror, in a criminal ease, on the ground of implied bias, cannot be excepted to, or reviewed by the appellate Court.

Gbanting Time to Move fob a New Tbial.—The presumption is, that the action of the Court in a criminal case, in refusing to allow the defendant further time to move for a new trial, was correct.

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.: 1. The first supposed error relied upon to reverse the judgment is, that the challenge of the District Attorney made against Clarkson, for implied bias, was improperly sustained, and he erroneously excluded from serving as a [680]juror at the trial of the case. It is sufficient answer to this, however, that the action of the Court in sustaining such a challenge is not the subject of an exception. (Penal Code, Sec. 1170, subdivision 1; and People v. Murphy, 45 Cal. 137, where the reason of the distinction is adverted to.)

2. The only other point made for the prisoner is the refusal of the Court below to allow him further time in which to move for a new trial. The verdict had been found on the 18th of January, and he was brought before the Court for judgment on the 22d of the same month. He then applied for further time in which to move for a new trial, which application was then denied, and judgment rendered.

Upon what grounds the application was based, or by what circumstances it was supported, the record is entirely silent, and the necessary intendment here is that the action of the Court below was correct.

Judgment and order affirmed.

People v. Colson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief