People v. Crossland

Decision Date23 June 1960
Docket NumberCr. 3756
Citation182 Cal.App.2d 117,5 Cal.Rptr. 781
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joe Charles CROSSLAND, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Martin N. Pulich, Public Defender, John D. Nunes, Chris G. Gasparich, Asst. Public Defenders, County of Alameda, Oakland, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Peter T. Kennedy, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

DRAPER, Justice.

Defendant was charged with being a person convicted of felony who was in possession of a gun capable of concealment on the person (Penal Code § 12021). He appeals from judgment of conviction entered upon jury verdict. The sole claim of error is that the trial judge, in comments made to the jury after its deliberation had begun, unduly influenced the jury's verdict.

The jury retired at 1:50 p. m. of the second day of trial. It returned three times for reading of evidence and for further instructions. At 9:38 p. m., the court again had the jurors returned to the courtroom, and was told that they stood 10 to 2, but without any intimation as to whether the majority favored acquittal or conviction. The court, after stating that 'this situation * * * sort of baffles me,' said: 'What's the problem? I don't want you to say who said what, but let's get at it here. If I may say, this is probably the most simple case I have ever tried in my twelve years as a Superior Court Judge, and I have heard over a thousand trials. What's the point?' After further discussion, the jury was sent back at 9:45 p. m. to resume its deliberations, and returned at 10:08 p. m. with a verdict of guilty.

This case is not within the rule requiring reversal where the trial judge controls the verdict by direct expression to the jury of his view that the defendant is guilty or that his testimony is not to be believed (People v. Graham, 156 Cal.App.2d 525, 319 P.2d 677, and cases there cited). Nor is it controlled by the proscription of insistence upon a verdict after the trial judge knows that the votes for conviction predominate (People v. Baumgartner, 166 Cal.App.2d 103, 332 P.2d 366; People v. Walker, 93 Cal.App.2d 818, 209 P.2d 834; People v. Blackwell, 81 Cal.App. 417, 253 P. 964).

But we are unable to distinguish the case at bar from the decisions which hold that insistence upon further deliberation by the jury, coupled with statements that the case is clear or simple, constitutes coercion of the jury and requires reversal (People v. Kindleberger, 100 Cal. 367, 34 P. 852; People v. Crowley, 101 Cal.App.2d 71, 224 P.2d 748; People v. Conboy, 15 Cal.App. 97, 113...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • People v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 23 Octubre 1986
    ...trial court, by insisting on further deliberations, expressed an opinion that a verdict should be reached. (People v. Crossland (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 117, 119, 5 Cal.Rptr. 781; People v. Crowley (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 71, 75, 224 P.2d 748.) Though the court here told the jury nothing to that......
  • Gallego v. McDonald, 2:11-cv-02402-JKS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 20 Noviembre 2012
    ...the minority into joining the majority jurors' views of the case." (Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 775, citing People v. Crossland (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 117, 119 and People v. Crowley (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 71, 75; see also Jiminez v. Myers (9th Cir. 1993) 40 F.3d 976 [relied upon by defe......
  • People v. Keenan
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 25 Agosto 1988
    ...of compromise and expediency. ( People v. Carter, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 817, 69 Cal.Rptr. 297, 442 P.2d 353; People v. Crossland (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 117, 119, 5 Cal.Rptr. 781; see People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835, 849-850, 139 Cal.Rptr. 861, 566 P.2d 997; People v. Crowley (1950) 10......
  • People v. Smith
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 4 Abril 1974
    ...statement is not, without more, coercive. (People v. Burton,Supra, at p. 356, 11 Cal.Rptr. 65, 359 P.2d 433.) In People v. Crossland,182 Cal.App.2d 117, 5 Cal.Rptr. 781, relied on by defendant, the jury was divided 10 to 2; moreover, the court, rather than making the temperate statement inv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...minutes thereafter to reach a verdict and the instruction told them not to surrender their own convictions. People v. Crossland (1960) 182 Cal. App. 2d 117, 119, 5 Cal. Rptr. 781. The judge remarked to the jury that he was baffled by the jury’s inability to reach a verdict, because the case......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • 29 Marzo 2023
    ...103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 23, §§9:60, 9:170 Crooks, In re (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 1090, 1100, 275 Cal. Rptr. 420, 14:30 Crossland, People v. (1960) 182 Cal. App. 2d 117, 5 Cal. Rptr. 781, §22:140 Crow, People v . (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 440, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 624, §10:190 Cruey v. Gannett Co . (1998) 64 C......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT