People v. Williams

California Supreme Court Nov 15, 1881 No. No. 10,686Published

Before: Morrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court has the discretionary power under Section 1129 of the Penal Code to order a defendant into custody at the commencement of a trial, and that such an order does not violate constitutional rights to bail.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in ordering the defendant into custody during the trial despite his prior admission to bail.
Whether Section 1129 of the Penal Code is unconstitutional.
Whether the trial court's jury instructions were prejudicial.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of larceny.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are of the opinion, however, that it was within the power of the Court to order the defendant into custody as soon as the trial commenced.”

“The defendant’s counsel contends that the above section of the Code is unconstitutional, inasmuch as it violates the right of bail secured by the Constitution. We do not think, however, that the position is well taken”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of conviction and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Clark, J.

The Court, of its own motion, instructed the jury, among other things, as follows:

“ The number of the links in a chain” (of circumstantial evidence) “ are not material, provided they are sufficient to satisfy your minds of the guilt of the person charged. I will mention some of the circumstances which are usual.

“1. The presence of the defendant in the neighborhood and near by where the offense is alleged to have been committed, which shows that it was in his power at the time named to have committed it; that is one circumstance. Subsequently finding him in the possession of the stolen property, is another circumstance. But neither of these alone, nor perhaps these two together, would be sufficient, if there was nothing more, but they are circumstances proper for the jury to consider. If you should add to these circumstances another, that he gave a false accoumt of how he came into the possession of the property, that would be a third link in the chain. If he gave contradictory statements, one time saying that he obtained the property one way and at another time stating that he obtained it another, those would be other circumstances, or if he made a false claim to the ownership of the property and when confronted with the allegations and statements that the property had been stolen and that he was not the owner of it, he fails to reassert his claim, but abandoned all pretense of ownership, that would be another circumstance; and if there are circumstances enough proven,” etc.

The italics indicate the portions of the charge objected to.

Morrison, C. J.: The defendant was convicted of the crime of larceny, and a new trial having been denied him, appeals from the judgment as well as from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

During the progress of the trial, and before the jury retired from the. court-room, the Court ordered the defendant into the custody of the Sheriff. The defendant had been regularly admitted to bail, and it is claimed that it was error to make the order complained of.

We can not see how the substantial rights of the defendant were prejudiced by the order, even conceding it to have been erroneous. We are of the opinion, however, that it was within the power of the Court to order the defendant into custody as soon as the trial commenced. Section 1129 of the Penal Code provides as follows: “ When a defendant who has given bail appears for trial, the Court may, in its discretion, at any time after his appearance for trial, order him to be committed to the custody of the proper officer of the county, to abide the judgment or further order of the Court, and he must be committed and held in custody accordingly.”

The defendant’s counsel contends that the above section of the Code is unconstitutional, inasmuch as it violates the right of bail secured by the Constitution. We do not think, however, that the position is well taken; and in this view we are sustained by the decision of the Court in the case of The People v. Beauchamp, 49 Cal. 41. It is there said: “In this case the prisoner seems to have absconded after the cause was given to the jury and before their return into Court. The growing frequency of occurrences of this character, thwarting the administration of criminal justice, would suggest the propriety in all trials for felony, of promptly ordering the prisoner, regardless of his previous admission to bail, into actual custody, at the commencement of the trial, or immediately upon the retirement of the jury, to consider their verdict.” We fully agree with the former Court in its view of the propriety of ordering a defendant who is being prosecuted for felony, and who is at large on bail, into the custody of the proper officer at the commencement of the trial. 'This [677]would prevent an escape and would subserve the ends of justice.

The next point is that the charge of the Court to the jury was not warranted by the evidence. The Court, in stating the circumstances which might be considered evidence of guilt, enumerated certain circumstances which did not appear in the evidence in the case; but this was simply by way of illustration, and could not have had any prejudicial effect upon the minds of the jurors. The instructions are very clear and full, presenting the law applicable to the case in a very satisfactory manner, and we find no objection to them, or any of them, sufficient to justify a reversal of the judgment. (Reported swpra)

People v. Williams

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief