People v. Green

California Supreme Court Sep 26, 1893 No. No. 20992Published

Before: McFarland

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court abused its discretion by limiting defense counsel to one hour for closing argument in a complex, five-day felony trial involving voluminous and conflicting evidence. Such a limitation, imposed against the defendant's objection, violated the constitutional right to be fully heard by counsel.

Issues

Did the trial court exceed its discretionary power by limiting defense counsel to one hour for closing argument in a five-day felony trial?
Did the trial court err in refusing to administer a specific form of oath to Chinese witnesses without evidence that they held a different, more obligatory belief system?

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the circumstances of this case we think the order limiting counsel for defendant to one hour exceeded the discretionary power of the court.”

“That a defendant being tried on a charge of felony has a constitutional right to be fully heard in his defense by counsel, which it is not within the discretionary power of the court to deny or abridge, is not to be questioned.”

Synopsis

Cbqiinai, Law—Trial fob Felony—Obdeb Limiting Argument of Counsel^ Abose of Disobetion—Constitutional Right—New Trial__An order limiting the counsel for a defendant charged with felony to one hour within which to sum up and argue the case to the jury, is an abuse of discretion, where it appears that the trial occupied five days, and that the time was insufficient for the full presentation of the case to the jury on behalf of the defendant, and where the uncontradicted affidavits of counsel and the state of the evidence both show that the prisoner was deprived by the limitation of the constitutional right to be fully heard in his defense by counsel, a new trial must be granted.

Id.—Administering Oath to Chinese Witness—Statute not Mandatory—Discretion— Showing Required. — Sections 2095 and 2096 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not mandatory, but merely permissive at the discretion of the court to adopt a peculiar mode of swearing a witness who regards such mode as more solemn or obligatory, or according to the peculiar ceremonies of his religion; and in order to show an abuse of the discretionary power conferred, in refusing to administer a peculiar oath to a Chinese witness, it must be made to appear that the court was informed that the witness regarded some other form more obligatory than the form adopted in this state, and perhaps that he did not consider the latter at all obligatory.

Opinion

The Court. By information the defendant and Albert Larsen were jointly accused of the crime of robbery. They demanded separate trials, and the defendant was first separately tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the term of his natural life. He appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The information charges that defendant robbed one You Kara, a Chinaman, of one hundred and seventy-four dollars and a gold watch, the property of one San Kee, in the county of Fresno, on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1892.

Counsel for appellant contend that the court committed several errors prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, the most important of which will be first considered.

[565]It is claimed that the court erred in limiting counsel for defendant to one hour in which to sum up the evidence and argue the case to the jury.

The trial of the case occupied five days, three of which, at least, were devoted to hearing the testimony of twenty-four witnesses. When the evidence had been closed and counsel were ready to proceed with their addresses to the jury, the court said to them: “I think two counsel will be enough to argue the case, and an hour on a side.” Mr. Freeman, of counsel for defendant, said: “ We object to being limited.” The Court: “ Give him the benefit of his exception, limit you to an hour on a side, gentlemen.” Mr. Freeman: “Well, we except.”

Defendant was represented by two counselors, Messrs. Freeman and La Due, by whose affidavits it appears that the testimony of the twenty-four witnesses examined at the trial consisted of over ninety thousand words, besides the testimony of witnesses taken at the preliminary examination of defendant and others before the magistrate, which was admitted at the trial by stipulation, consisting of over twelve thousand words; that only Mr. Freeman addressed the jury on the part of the defendant, and consumed the hour to which defendant’s counsel were limited, and closed his address at the expiration thereof; that, by reason of the limitation, counsel for defendant were prevented from presenting several important points to the jury, which they deemed material for the defense, and which they would have considered it their duty to present, and would have presented, but for the limitation of time to which they were subjected by the order of the court; that it was impossible fully aud properly to argue the case to the jury for the defendant within one hour; and that they believe the rights of the defendant were prejudiced by the limitation.

People v. Green

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — McFarland

AI Brief