24 Cal. 11, People v. Jenks
|Citation:||24 Cal. 11|
|Opinion Judge:||SANDERSON, Judge|
|Party Name:||THE PEOPLE v. JENKS|
|Attorney:||Rodgers and Coffroth, for Appellant, McCullough, Attorney-General, for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||JUDGES: Sanderson, C. J. Currey, J., expressed no opinion.|
|Case Date:||January 01, 1864|
|Court:||Supreme Court of California|
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Tuolumne County.
The case of The People v. Kohle would support the error assigned, if the facts were the same. But in this case, the Court at the outset informed defendant of the order and manner in which to make his challenges, and the Court must of necessity be vested with a reasonable discretion in determining the preliminaries of a criminal trial, even if not strictly in accordance with statutory provisions, or to make rules and orders in its discretion, to expedite trials, and if there is no abuse, there is no error. (People v. Stoncifer , 6 Cal. 409; People v. Sears , 18 Cal. 635; People v. Keenan , 13 Cal. 584; People v. Bonney , 19 Cal. 445.)
The defendant was tried and convicted of the crime of grand larceny.
We deem it unnecessary to notice more than one of the errors assigned by counsel for the appellant. The other errors, if they are such, will doubtless be avoided upon another trial.
After five jurors had been impanelled, the Court informed defendant's attorney " that he must exhaust all his challenges to the jury before accepting them, and that he would not be permitted to challenge afterwards without assigning a sufficient reason therefor." To the rule thus prescribed by the Court counsel for the defendant excepted. The defendant's attorney then examined the remaining seven jurors for cause, and passed them to the District Attorney, who expressed himself as satisfied with the jury. The Court then directed the Clerk to swear them to try the case. Thereupon counsel for defendant interposed a peremptory challenge to B. F. Gordon, one of the seven jurors last examined, and declined to assign any reason therefor except " his statutory right."
At the time this challenge was interposed the defendant had remaining six of the ten peremptory challenges allowed him by the statute. The Court refused to allow the challenge...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP