People v. Wallace

California Supreme Court Feb 7, 1894 No. No. 21626Published

Before: Vanclief

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's plea was substantially compliant with the Penal Code, that challenges to a special venire panel must be based on the summoning officer's bias, and that erroneous jury instructions regarding murder were harmless because the defendant was acquitted of that charge.

Issues

Whether the defendant's plea of 'not guilty of the charge as stated in the information' satisfied the requirements of Penal Code section 1017.
Whether a challenge to a special venire panel may be based on the nonresidency of the jurors.
Whether the trial court erred in overruling a challenge to a juror based on the creation of a new county.
Whether jury instructions on implied malice were prejudicial when the defendant was convicted only of assault with a deadly weapon.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“I think the plea entered in the minutes is “ substantially,” in the form prescribed by section 1017 of the Penal Code.”

“the only ground of challenge to the panel of a jury summoned by a special venire is, “bias of the officer who summoned them,” as provided in section 1064 of the Penal Code.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Plea of Not Guilty—Form of Plea.—Where the defend, ant in a criminal action interposes a plea of “not guilty” of the charge as stated in the information, such plea entered in the minutes of the court is substantially in the form described by section 1107 of the Penal Code, which requires a plea of not guilty to state substantially that “ the defendant pleads that he is not guilty of the offense charged.”

Id.—Trial—Challenge to Panel of Jury—Nonresidence of Jurors— Special Venire.—The only ground of challenge to the panel of a jury summoned by special venire is “bias of the officer who summoned them,” as provided in section 1064 of the Penal Code, and a challenge of such panel on the ground that they are nonresidents of the county is not admissible, and the court is not bound to try an issue of fact thereon because the district attorney states that the prosecution denies the challenge.

Id.—Residence of Juror—Formation of New County.—Where a juror, upon a criminal trial in San Bernardino county, was challenged on the ground that he was not a resident of that county, but of the new county of Riverside, the challenge is properly overruled where it appears that the trial took place three days before the returns of the election were declared by which the county of Riverside came into existence.

Id.—Judicial Notice—Existence of New County.—Whether or not a new county had been created and existed at the time of the trial of a criminal action, is a matter of judicial notice, where the act for the organization of the county declares that it shall be and become an organized county from and after the day upon which the returns of an election in favor of creating it shall be ascertained and declared by the board of commissioners.

Id.—Assault With Deadly Weapon With Intent to Murder—Conviction of Less Offense—Harmless Error in Instructions.—Where a defendant, accused with an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to murder, is convicted only of an assault with a deadly weapon, any error in instruction upon the subject of the intent to murder, which could have no bearing upon the lower offense of which the defendant was convicted, is harmless.

Vanclief, C. The defendant was tried, in the county of San Bernardino, on an information by the district attorney, for an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to murder; but was convicted of only an assault with a deadly weapon. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. It is contended that the plea of the defendant, as entered in the minutes of the court, was not in form or substance such as required by section 1017 of the Penal Code, viz:

“ Every plea must be oral and entere’d upon the minutes of the court substantially in the following form:

“2. If he plead not guilty: ‘The defendant pleads that he is not guilty of the offense charged.’ ”

The minutes of the court show that the defendant was regularly arraigned on March 6, 1893, and upon being asked whether he was guilty or not guilty, his attorney asked further time to plead, and was given until March 8th. On March 8th, the following entry was made in the minutes:

“ The People of the State of California v. John Wallace.

“ Defendant and his counsel are present and the district attorney is present. Counsel for defendant interposes a demurrer to complaint; the same being overruled by the court. Defendant thereupon interposes a plea of not guilty of the charge as stated in the information.”

I think the plea entered in the minutes is “ substantially,” in the form prescribed by section 1017 of the Penal Code.

It is claimed that the plea is improperly limited to the charge, “ as stated in the information,” as if the defendant was required to plead to a charge as stated elsewhere than in the information.

2. The jury was not drawn, but was summoned by the sheriff by authority of a special venire facias regularly issued by order of the court.

Before any juror was sworn the defendant challenged the panel “ on the ground that the panel of the jurors [283]served and returned are nonresidents of the county of San Bernardino.”

The district attorney said: “ Prosecution denies the challenge.” Thereupon the court overruled the challenge for the reason that the only ground of challenge to the panel of a jury summoned by a special venire is, “bias of the officer who summoned them,” as provided in section 1064 of the Penal Code.

People v. Wallace

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief