Knight v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 02 February 1950 |
| Citation | 214 P.2d 21,95 Cal.App.2d 838 |
| Parties | . Civ. 17647. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Milton M. Cohen, Milton M. Cohen, Jr., Los Angeles, for petitioner.
Chase, Rotchford, Downen & Chase, Los Angeles, for respondent real party in interest.
Wm. E. Lamoreaux, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent Court.
In this case the Superior Court is proceeding to try without a jury the issue of incompetency of a citizen of this state. Demand for a jury was made in due and proper time and was by the court denied. Upon this showing an alternative writ of prohibition issued, time for hearing shortended, and the matter heard this day.
Two grounds to the opposition of the issuance of the writ are urged: 'First, that as a matter of law the Superior Court is right and that the alleged incompetent has no right to trial by jury of that issue. Without reviewing the authorities, this court is definitely of the opinion that the trial court was in error in this respect. Secondly, it is urged that the writ of prohibition does not lie in any event because the alleged incompetent has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. This view of the limitation of the writ of prohibition was first expressed in Powelson v. Lockwood, 82 Cal. 613, 23 P. 143. In that case it was held that a justice of the peace who denied petitioner a jury trial had not exceeded his jurisdiction. Therefore, if error was committed, it could be corrected on appeal rather than by invoking prohibition. This proposition has been approved in a number of early decisions of the Supreme Court and of the District Courts of Appeal. Powelson v. Lockwood, supra; Beaulieu Vineyard v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.App. 242, 248, 91 P. 1015; Hamberger v. Police Court, 12 Cal.App. 153, 106 P. 894, 107 P. 614; Dickerson v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.App. 534, 183 P. 235; Havemeyer v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. 327, 398, 24 P. 121, 10 L.R.A. 627, 18 Am.St.Rep. 192.
We are impressed, however, that later cases have relaxed this rigorous rule as well as definition of jurisdiction, and have committed the question of issuance of the writ here sought to the sound discretion of the court to which application therefor is made, in the hight of whether by reason of the nature of the proceeding and the facts and circumstances shown, an appeal would be a speedy and adequate remedy.
In view of the constitutional right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Epps
...115 Cal.App.2d 781, 784, 252 P.2d 993; Budde v. Superior Court (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 615, 622, 218 P.2d 103; Knight v. Superior Court (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 838, 839-840, 214 P.2d 21.) In view of this authority, appellant would have been entitled to relief from the denial of his request withou......
-
State ex rel. Weber v. Municipal Court of Town of Jackson
...statute or ordinance defining the offense a jail sentence is permissible. 1 This is the basis of Knight v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County, 95 Cal.App.2d 838, 214 P.2d 21 (1950) where in a competency hearing the superior court was proceeding to try the matter without a jury as ......
-
Application of Banschbach, 9887
...even in California there are cases to the contrary. Mallarino v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.2d 781, 252 P.2d 993; Knight v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.2d 838, 214 P.2d 21, an see Ex parte Becknell, 119 Cal. 496, 51 P. 692. There is no question but what a jury trial court have been waived i......
-
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County
...which may be futile if the appellate court subsequently determines that a jury trial was improperly denied. See Knight v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.2d 838, 214 P.2d 21 (1950); see generally 41 A.L.R.2d 774 (1955) and cases cited therein. Thus, our determination is that the remedy sought wa......