In re Anderson
Before: Doran
DORAN, J. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Thomas Anderson seeks to be released from restraint under a judgment convicting him of the offense of disturbing the peace. It is claimed by petitioner that the Justice’s Court of Camarillo Township exceeded its jurisdiction.
The facts are as follows: On December 15, 1938, a warrant of arrest on the above-mentioned charge was issued by W. H. Miller, the justice of the peace of Camarillo township. Defendant Anderson entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. The cause ivas set for trial by jury on February 14, 1939. Prior to that date Judge W. PI. Miller was served with a subpoena to appear as a witness for and on behalf of defendant Anderson. Judge Miller, deeming himself disquali[347]fled, requested the justice of the peace of Ventura township, Judge J. C. P. Moore, to come to Camarillo to act as justice of the peace of Camarillo township for the purposes of the proceedings in the Anderson trial. Thereafter a jury was duly selected and sworn. The cause was then transferred for trial to the courtroom of Judge J. C. P. Moore in the county courthouse at Ventura, California. The discussion relative to this transfer was revealed by the record to be as follows:
“Mr. Waite (District Attorney of Ventura County) : Now, if the Court please, in discussing this matter with Mr. Kidder the defense suggested the courtroom was so small, if it would be convenient for the jurors to hold this hearing in Ventura where there are facilities and accommodations for the jurors in the courtroom there, it be transferred there. Mr. Kidder states it is agreeable to him. I think it is a matter to be left with the discretion of the jury, inasmuch as they are the ones who will be inconvenienced more than anyone else.
“Mr. Kidder (Defendant’s Counsel) : I might add, Mr. Waite, this additional information; from information in my possession I believe there will be not less than 40 witnesses produced both for the People and the defense in this case, several days of trial, and it will be hard trying. It would perhaps be of considerable aid to the jury if we have comfortable quarters in which to work, and I know that the district attorney would favor it, and I know that I favor it, and, I think, neither the judge nor the court reporter would have any objection if the jury were willing to have the case tried there, and the defendant is willing to waive any jurisdictional matters in having the case tried there rather than tried here. Everyone feels we have been crowded here today, and the breathing is not so good, and we can have ample quarters there through arrangements made by the County to try the case if the jury would be willing to appear there. r 1
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)