People v. Buelna (1856) · DecisionDepot

People v. Buelna

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

California Supreme Court Sep 22, 1856 No. No. 1151Published

Before: Murray, Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant's objections regarding venue, oral instructions, and the jury's role in sentencing were without merit.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing a change of venue.
Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury orally.
Whether the jury, rather than the court, should have assessed the punishment for grand larceny.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“These objections are all frivolous.”

“As before decided by us, the jury have no power to assess the punishment in ease of grand larceny, except when in the exercise of their discretion they see proper to inflict the punishment of death.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Santa Cruz County.

MURRAY, C. J. — The appellant assigns three grounds of error on which he relies to reverse the judgment of the court below: 1. A refusal to change the venue; 2. That the court instructed the jury orally; and 3. That the jury should have assessed the punishment, and not the court. These objections are all frivolous. 1. There was no sufficient showing made for a change of venue; 2. What is complained of as an instruction is a simple direction as to the form of the verdict; 3. As before decided by us, the jury have no power to assess the punishment in ease of grand larceny, except when in the exercise of their discretion they see proper to inflict the punishment of death.

Judgment affirmed.

I concur: Terry, J.

People v. Buelna

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief