People v. Curtis

California Supreme Court May 28, 1896 No. Crim. No. 120Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court has the inherent authority to vacate an order of dismissal entered through inadvertence or mistake and to correct its records to reflect the orders actually made.

Issues

Whether a trial court has the authority to vacate an order of dismissal entered through inadvertence or mistake.
Whether a trial court's determination regarding the existence of inadvertence or mistake in its own orders is subject to review.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The power of a court to cause its records to correctly set forth the orders which it has actually made, as well as to set aside an order which it has made through inadvertence or mistake, is too well established to require argument”

“if the question of mistake or inadvertence is disputed, the decision of the judge upon any controverted fact is not open to review.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Dismissal of Indictment—Mistake of Clerk—Vacation of Entry.—Where an indictment was improperly dismissed by the entry o£ an order of dismissal through a mistake of the clerk, in supposing that the case was included with a number of other criminal ' actions which were ordered to be dismissed, the court has jurisdiction to vacate the order of dismissal entered by the clerk.

Id.—Jurisdiction to Correct Records—Determination of Fact as to Mistake or Inadvertence Conclusive.—A court has power to cause its records to correctly set forth the orders which it has actually made, as well as to set aside an order which it has made through inadvertence or mistake; and if the question of mistake or inadvertence is disputed, the decision of the judge upon any controverted fact is not open to review.

Id. —Pencil Order — Filing of Formal Order — Procurement of Defendant—Knowledge of Vacation of Order.—A pencil order of dismissal does not acquire any additional force by reason of the subsequent filing of a formal order attested by the clerk, without the knowledge or consent of the court, on the procurement of the defendant, after knowledge on his part that an order had been made by the court vacating the order of dismissal.

Harrison, J. The grand jury of the county of Sacramento presented, an accusation against the defendant for having, while holding the office of supervisor of that county, corruptly and in violation of his official duty voted for the payment of a claim against the county. Other accusations were at the same time presented against him for illegally voting for the appointment and payment of certain deputy assessors; and similar accusations against other supervisors were also presented by the grand jury. While these accusations were pending in the superior court of Sacramento county, the trial of one of them against the defendant for illegally voting for the appointment and payment of [70]a deputy assessor was had, and resulted in an acquittal. On the next day, October 3d, one of the accusations—People v. Morrison, No. 1403—was on the calendar of the court for trial, and the district attorney stated to the court that the testimony in the case would be the same, and the question the same, as in the case of People v. Curtis, which had just been tried; that there were a considerable number of such cases, and it would, under the facts and the law as ruled by the court on the trial of People v. Gurtis, be impossible to convict the defendants. Upon this statement, and the motion of the district attorney therefor, the court directed the dismissal of all such cases. It does not appear that there was presented to the court any list or statement of the cases to which the order of dismissal was directed, but, after the order had been made, the clerk, at the request of the attorney for the defendant herein, entered in pencil in his rough minutes, in twenty-three cases, including the present one, the following order: “ The above-entitled action coming on regularly this day for trial, District Attorney F. D. Ryan and S. Solon Holl appearing in court, as counsel for the people, and'Robert T. Devlin and Charles T. Jones appearing for the defendant; upon motion of the district attorney, it is ordered that the above-entitled action be and the same is hereby dismissed.”

On the 8th of October, and before the clerk had entered any of these orders in the regular minutes, the court made an order vacating the aforesaid order of dismissal so far as it related to the present case (and also five others), upon the ground that it was made through inadvertence and mistake. From this order the present appeal has been taken.

It is recited in the bill of exceptions that, in making the order of dismissal, the court understood from the statement of the district attorney “that the cases which he moved to dismiss were those only in which the defendants were accused of misconduct in having illegally voted for the payment of the salary of sundry deputy officials; that an examination of the accusations in six

People v. Curtis

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief