People v. Camilo (1886) · DecisionDepot

People v. Camilo

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

California Supreme Court May 21, 1886 No. No. 20175Published

Before: McKee

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial because the record demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay beyond the sixty-day statutory period.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to dismiss for failure to bring the defendant to trial within sixty days of the information being filed.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the record shows that sufficient cause was shown for not bringing the action against the defendant to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information.”

“As this is the only assignment of error presented by the record, the judgment and order are affirmed.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Trial—Want of Speedy Prosecution—Dismissal.— The failure to bring a person charged with crime to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information will not warrant a dismissal of the prosecution, if the delay was caused by the illness of the trial judge, or his engagements in the trial of other causes.

McKee, J. It is the policy of the law, that persons charged with crime shall have a speedy as well as a fair and impartial trial. To that end it is provided by section 1382, Penal Code:—

[541]“ The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dismissed in the following cases:—

“ 2. If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within sixty days after the filing of the indictment or filing of the information.”

The defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution against him on that ground, and subsequently on the same ground moved in arrest of judgment.- Both motions were denied, and we think there was no error in the rulings of the court, because the record shows that sufficient cause was shown for not bringing the action against the defendant to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information.

As this is the only assignment of error presented by the record, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Myrick, J., Morrison, C. J., Ross, J., Thornton, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

People v. Camilo

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief