Cardenas v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | DOOLING; GIBSON; McCOMB |
| Citation | 363 P.2d 889,14 Cal.Rptr. 657,56 Cal.2d 273 |
| Parties | , 363 P.2d 889, 100 A.L.R.2d 371 Fidel Carrillo CARDENAS, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; The People of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. L.A. 26406. |
| Decision Date | 20 July 1961 |
Page 657
v.
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; The People of the State of California, Real Party in Interest.
As Modified Aug. 16, 1961.
Page 658
[363 P.2d 890] [56 Cal.2d 274] David C. Marcus, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., Harry Wood and Robert J. Lord, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for real party in interest.
DOOLING, Justice.
Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to prohibit any further proceedings upon an information charging him with the crime of possessing narcotics. The record shows the following facts:
Petitioner was arrested and charged by information with possessing heroin and marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code, § 11500. He was arraigned, and the matter [56 Cal.2d 275] came to trial on April 25, 1961. A jury was impaneled, and a number of witnesses testified for the prosecution and underwent defense counsel's cross-examination. Petitioner took the stand and testified in his own behalf. Upon cross-examination by the prosecutor, petitioner was asked a question which caused defense counsel to object and to move for a mistrial. The prosecutor joined in the motion. There ensued a dispute between defense counsel and the prosecutor as to the procedural effect of the prosecutor's having joined in the motion for a mistrial, the trial court indicating that the turn taken by the proceedings 'is all right with me.' Defense counsel then requested that his motion be withdrawn, and the prosecutor asked the court to rule on the motions as they stood. The trial judge called both attorneys into chambers, where proceedings which do not appear in the record took place. When the proceedings resumed in the courtroom, defense counsel again requested that his motion for a mistrial be withdrawn. The request was denied. The motion for a mistrial was thereupon granted. Defense counsel then moved that any further proceedings against petitioner be dismissed on the ground that he had now been once placed in jeopardy. This motion was denied and a date for resetting the trial was scheduled. When defendant and his counsel appeared for resetting, defendant entered a plea of once in jeopardy based upon the discharge of the jury at the prior trial without his or his counsel's consent.
[363 P.2d 891]
Page 659
We are satisfied that under the facts shown by the record the plea of once in jeopardy is good and the writ sought by petitioner should issue. It is settled that where a plea of once...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Lancie v. Superior Court of State of Cal., San Mateo County
...504 P.2d 457; Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 716, 87 Cal.Rptr. 361, 470 P.2d 345; cf. Cardenas v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 273, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889.) Although the courts have consistently recognized the existence of a protectable privacy interest within a var......
-
People v. Fields, No. S044641
...1086; Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 716, 87 Cal.Rptr. 361, 470 P.2d 345 [reaffirming Cardenas v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 273, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889, in which federal rule permitting mistrial on court's own motion rejected in light of decisions interpreting st......
-
People v. Ham, Cr. 7577
...the jury's discharge was consented to or there was legal necessity to discharge the jury. (Cardenas v. Superior [7 Cal.App.3d 775] Court, 56 Cal.2d 273, 275, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889; Paulson v. Superior Court, In the present case there was no consent by defendant to the discharge. He......
-
Committee To Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers, S.F. 24069
...(same); Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 87 Cal.Rptr. 361, 470 P.2d 345 (double jeopardy); Cardenas v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 273, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889 (same); People v. Martin (1955) 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855 (vicarious exclusionary 5 In 1972, the people ad......
-
De Lancie v. Superior Court of State of Cal., San Mateo County
...504 P.2d 457; Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 716, 87 Cal.Rptr. 361, 470 P.2d 345; cf. Cardenas v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 273, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889.) Although the courts have consistently recognized the existence of a protectable privacy interest within a var......
-
People v. Fields, No. S044641
...1086; Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 716, 87 Cal.Rptr. 361, 470 P.2d 345 [reaffirming Cardenas v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 273, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889, in which federal rule permitting mistrial on court's own motion rejected in light of decisions interpreting st......
-
People v. Ham, Cr. 7577
...the jury's discharge was consented to or there was legal necessity to discharge the jury. (Cardenas v. Superior [7 Cal.App.3d 775] Court, 56 Cal.2d 273, 275, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889; Paulson v. Superior Court, In the present case there was no consent by defendant to the discharge. He......
-
Committee To Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers, S.F. 24069
...(same); Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 87 Cal.Rptr. 361, 470 P.2d 345 (double jeopardy); Cardenas v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 273, 14 Cal.Rptr. 657, 363 P.2d 889 (same); People v. Martin (1955) 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855 (vicarious exclusionary 5 In 1972, the people ad......