73 Cal. 548, 20273, People v. Meyer

Docket Nº:20273
Citation:73 Cal. 548, 15 P. 95
Opinion Judge:THORNTON, Judge
Party Name:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FRANK MEYER, Appellant
Attorney:John D'Arcy, for Appellant. Attorney-General Johnson, for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: In Bank. Thornton, J. Searls, C. J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Case Date:October 06, 1887
Court:Supreme Court of California
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 548

73 Cal. 548

15 P. 95

THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

v.

FRANK MEYER, Appellant

No. 20273

Supreme Court of California

October 6, 1887

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.

COUNSEL:

John D'Arcy, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Johnson, for Respondent.

JUDGES: In Bank. Thornton, J. Searls, C. J., McFarland, J., Paterson, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

OPINION

THORNTON, Judge

[15 P. 96] The defendant is accused by information of petit larceny, and four previous convictions of petit larceny. On his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty of the petit larceny charged in the information, and confessed and pleaded guilty to the prior convictions.

Page 549

The bill of exceptions recites: "At said trial, the clerk of the court, after having read the first part of the information, which charged the crime of petit larceny, as herein stated, was proceeding to read the second part, which charged the prior conviction, as above stated and set forth, when defendant's counsel interposed an objection, on the ground that the reading of anything relative to the prior conviction was prohibited by section 1093 of the Penal Code. The court overruled said objection, and defendant's counsel duly excepted. The clerk then read to the jury that part of the information which charged the defendant with having suffered the prior conviction aforesaid, and as herein set forth. The prosecution was proceeding to present to the jury evidence that defendant had suffered said prior conviction, when defendant's counsel objected, on the ground that such evidence was irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. The court overruled said objection, and defendant's counsel duly excepted. A witness then testified that defendant had suffered said prior conviction. The prosecution then offered in evidence the record of defendant's said prior conviction, when defendant's counsel objected, on the ground that said evidence was irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. The court overruled said objection, and defendant's counsel duly excepted. The record of defendant's said prior conviction was then read to the jury."

Each of the foregoing rulings was error. (People v. Carlton , 57 Cal. 559; People v. Brooks , 65 Cal. 295; Ex parte Young Ah Gow,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP