People v. Fredericks

California Supreme Court Mar 21, 1895 No. No. 21156Published

Before: Garoutte

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's murder conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in its procedural rulings, including the denial of a change of venue which the defendant abandoned, the denial of challenges to jurors, and the admission of evidence and confessions.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a change of venue after the defendant failed to renew the motion when given the opportunity.
Whether the appellate court may review a trial court's denial of a challenge to a juror for actual bias when the evidence is contradictory.
Whether the information was fatally defective for failing to allege jurisdiction over the specific territory of the crime.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's pursuit and capture and his voluntary confessions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We deem counsel’s conduct an abandonment and waiver of the whole question, and he cannot now insist upon a new trial upon a ruling of the trial court, when he had full opportunity to secure the results desired at the hands of that court”

“A finding by the court either way upon the challenge would have support in the evidence, and under such circumstances the trial court is the final arbiter of the question.”

“We do not discover any error in the admission of defendant's statements and confessions. It appears that they were freely and voluntarily made.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Homicide—Pleading—Jurisdiction of Offense.—Where the information alleges that the offense of murder was committed in the city and county of San Francisco, the fact that it does not allege that it was not committed within excepted limits over which the superior court has no jurisdiction, and over which the United States courts have exclu. sive jurisdiction, does not render the information defective, but if the offense was committed within the excepted territory, it is matter of defense to he specially pleaded by the defendant.

Id.—Motion for Change of Venue—Popular Prejudice—Sufficiency of Showing—Waiver of Motion.—Where a motion for a change of venue is made upon affidavits showing a strong prima facie case in support of the motion, on the ground of bias and prejudice of the people against the defendant, without any counter-showing as to the condition of the public mind in the locality where the defendant was to be tried, the defendant is entitled to a change of venue, but where, after denial of the motion, another opportunity is afforded by the court to the defendant to urge the motion, and the hearing thereof is set for a particular date, at which time counsel for defendant failed to call up the motion, and no action was taken upon it by the trial court, the failure to urge the motion under these circumstances is an abandonment and waiver of it.

Id.—Challenge of Juror for Actual Blas—Review upon Appeal.—The supreme court can only review an order denying the challenge of a juror upon the ground of actual bias, when the evidence upon the examination of the juror is so opposed to the decision of the trial court that the question becomes one of law, and where the evidence is conflicting, or shows a state of facts which might have justified the trial court in excluding the juror, the decision by the trial court as to the question of fact is conclusive.

Id.—Evidence—Pursuit and Capture of Defendant.—Evidence is admissible as to the pursuit and capture of the defendant immediately after the commission of the homicide; and the prosecution has the right to prove the facts pertaining thereto, rather than take an admission as to them from the defendant.

Id.—Admissions and Confessions of Defendant.—Admissions and confessions of the defendant, which it appears were freely and voluntarily made, are properly received in evidence.

Id.—Motion for New Trial—Newly Discovered Evidence—Uncertified Affidavits.—Where a motion for a new trial is made upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, affidavits inserted in the transcript which are not incorporated in any bill of exceptions, nor identified in any way by the judge as having been used and considered upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial, cannot be considered upon appeal.

Garoutte, J. The appellant, Fredericks, was charged with the murder of one Herrick. He was subsequently convicted and a judgment of death passed upon him by the trial court. He now appeals from such judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. Upon the morning of March 23, 1894, during business hours, Fredericks, in attempting to rob a savings bank in the city of San Francisco, precipitated a combat with the employees, at which time the cashier, Herrick, was shot and killed. Fredericks immediately fled from the scene of his crime, but was hotly pursued and captured within a few hours. Upon March 28th he was preliminarily examined by a committing magistrate and committed for trial. Upon March 29th an information was filed against him, and upon March 30th he was arraigned and allowed until April 2d to plead to the information. At that time, upon refusing to plead, a plea of not guilty was entered in his behalf, and the case set for trial April 5th, at 10 a. m. Upon that day the trial proceeded. At each step in these proceedings the defendant asked for more time, and excepted to the vaious orders of the court denying his request.

While the period of time, to wit, three days intervening between the arraignment and the commencement of [557]the trial of the defendant, might be ample time in some European countries to bring to trial, convict, and decapitate half a dozen criminals, yet in this country, where judicial tribunals are organized upon a different system, and where persons charged with crime have more rights under the law, we think this defendant might well have been allowed ten, twenty, or even thirty days to prepare for his defense. In view of the enormity of the charge against him; in view of the public clamor that was pursuing him; in view of his own poverty and friendlessness, the state could well have afforded to concede him such a continuance, in order that he might have full opportunity to make his defense, however weak it may have been when made. The state would have lost nothing by such a course, and justice would have been done just the same. While the state should administer justice to law-breakers with no laggard hand, yet, at the instance of public clamor or other causes, it is beneath its dignity to act with unseemly haste. We conclude this branch of the case by saying that we do not think the mere fact of fixing the day of the trial at a time so soon after the arraignment and plea, ipso facto furnishes sufficient ground for a reversal of the judgment.

1. It is claimed that the information is fatally defective in its statement of facts. While it alleges the offense to have been committed in the city and county of San Francisco, it is insisted that the superior court has no jurisdiction over certain territory situated within said city and county, and for that reason no jurisdiction is shown in the court by the information to try the case, there being no allegation contained therein denying the commission of the offense upon such excepted territory. This question of jurisdiction was directly presented to the court for consideration in the very recent case of People v. Collins, 105 Cal. 504, and it was there held that it could not be raised by demurrer or motion in arrest of judgment, but was a matter of defense.

People v. Fredericks

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief