People v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 19 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5907 |
| Citation | 302 P.2d 300,47 Cal.2d 239 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California. Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Oscar HAMPTON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Oscar Hampton, in pro. per., and Robert L. Bostick, Oakland, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. F. Coakley, Dist. Atty., and Edward L. Merrill, Deputy Dist. Atty., Oakland, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of guilty after a trial before a jury of violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (). He also appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
First: Was defendant denied a speedy trial as guaranteed him under article I, section 13, of the California Constitution?
No. The record discloses that an information was filed against defendant on June 17, 1955, and that the trial was completed July 7, 1955. It is thus apparent that defendant was tried well within the 60-day period specified in section 1382 of the Penal Code. *
Second: Was there substantial evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty?
Yes. A federal narcotics agent testified in detail to the purchase from defendant of a quantity of marijuana, the transaction taking place in the agent's presence. This testimony, which was believed by the jury, constituted substantial evidence to sustain the verdict.
Third: Did the deputy district attorney commit prejudicial error in his argument to the jury?
No. During the course of the prosecutor's argument to the jury he said: 'May it please the Court; Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. It now becomes my privilege to make you the final argument. Right off I want to say I am not throwing in the sponge, as Mr. Casalina led you to believe. I think this man is guilty; I don't think that he is just a little pusher; I think he is a supplier; and I think he is guilty of this offense.
The rule is established that unless the harmful results of misconduct of the district attorney cannot be obviated by appropriate instructions of the trial court, error cannot be predicated in this court on such alleged misconduct in the absence of (a) assignment of such misconduct as error; and (b) a request to the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard it. (People v. Sampsell, 34 Cal.2d 757, at page 764, 214 P.2d 813; People v. Byrd, 42 Cal.2d 200, at page 208(3), 266 P.2d 505; People v. Tolson, 109 Cal.App.2d 579, at page 582(3), 241 P.2d 32.)
In the present case the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cooley
...supra, 55 Cal.2d 88, 10 Cal.Rptr. 167, 358 P.2d 295; People v. Turville, supra, 51 Cal.2d 620, 636, 335 P.2d 678; People v. Hampton, 47 Cal.2d 239, 240, 241, 302 P.2d 300; People v. Byrd, 42 Cal.2d 200, 208, 266 P.2d Subsequently, in his closing argument, the district attorney made an attem......
-
People v. Green
...v. Cook (1952) 39 Cal.2d 496, 500, 247 P.2d 567; People v. Kirkes (1952) 39 Cal.2d 719, 726-727, 249 P.2d 1; People v. Hampton (1956) 47 Cal.2d 239, 240-241, 302 P.2d 300; People v. Brice (1957) supra, 49 Cal.2d 434, 437, 317 P.2d 961; People v. Seiterle (1963) 59 Cal.2d 703, 710, 31 Cal.Rp......
-
People v. Love
...of such character that the error could not have been cured by prompt admonition and instructions of the trial court. People v. Hampton, 47 Cal.2d 239, 240, 302 P.2d 300; People v. Kirkes, supra, 39 Cal.2d 719, 725-727, 249 P.2d 1; People v. Sampsell, 34 Cal.2d 757, 764, 214 P.2d 813; People......
-
People v. Cruz
...unless the act or remark is of such a character that a harmful result cannot be cured by any timely admonition. (People v. Hampton (1956) 47 Cal.2d 239, 240-241, 302 P.2d 300; People v. Kirkes (1952) 39 Cal.2d 719, 726, 249 P.2d 1; People v. West (1932) 215 Cal. 87, 97-98, 8 P.2d On appeal,......