People v. Holmes, Cr. 6635

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtGIBSON
Citation5 Cal.Rptr. 871,353 P.2d 583,54 Cal.2d 442
Parties, 353 P.2d 583 PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. Nathan Boyd HOLMES, Appellant.
Docket NumberCr. 6635
Decision Date01 July 1960

Page 871

5 Cal.Rptr. 871
54 Cal.2d 442, 353 P.2d 583
PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent,
v.
Nathan Boyd HOLMES, Appellant.
Cr. 6635.
Supreme Court of California, In Bank.
July 1, 1960.
Rehearing Denied July 27, 1960.

Lionel Richman, Los Angeles, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, and James C. Williams, Studio City, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ernest E. Sanchez, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

Defendant was tried without a jury and found guilty of selling narcotics in violation of former section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. 1 The decisive question raised by this appeal is whether he waived a trial by jury in the manner required by the California Constitution. We have concluded that he did not.

Our Constitution declares that the right of trial by jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate. Prior to 1928 this right could not be waived in a criminal case in which the defendant was charged with a felony. In that year the Constitution was amended, and section 7 of article I now

Page 872

[353 P.2d 584] provides, 'A trial by jury may be waived in all criminal cases, by the [54 Cal.2d 443] consent of both parties, expressed in open court by the defendant and his counsel * * *.' 2

Mr. Aisenson (Deputy District Attorney): defendant and his counsel, and in civil actions by the consent of the parties, signified in such manner as may be prescribed by law. In civil actions and cases of misdemeanor, the jury may consist of twelve, or of any number less than twelve upon which the parties may agree in open court.'

When this case was called for trial the following occurred:

Mr. McCormick (Deputy Public Defender): Defendant is ready, your Honor.

Mr. Aisenson (Deputy District Attorney); People are ready, your Honor. * * *

The Court: Is this to be a jury trial?

Mr. McCormick: No, I believe it will be a court trial.

The Court: All right, take the waiver.

Mr. Aisenson: Nathan Boyd Holmes, is that your true and correct name?

The Defendant: Yes.

Mr. Aisenson: Mr. Holmes, do you understand you have been charged in indictment 250814 with the crime of selling heroin, do you understand that?

The Defendant: Yes.

Mr. Aisenson: And do you further understand that you have a right to a trial by jury to determine whether or not you are guilty or innocent of that charge?

The Defendant: Yes.

Mr. Aisenson: And do you also know that it is stated in the same information that you have been previously convicted of a felony...

To continue reading

Request your trial
117 practice notes
  • Soule v. General Motors Corp., No. S033144
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 27, 1994
    ...35 Cal.3d 86, 104-105, 197 Cal.Rptr. 52, 672 P.2d 835), ineffectual waiver of right to jury trial (see, e.g., People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 5 Cal.Rptr. 871, 353 P.2d 583), and discrimination in jury selection (see e.g., People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 283, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890......
  • People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007), A113729
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2007
    ...claim of deprivation of the fundamental constitutional rights to jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443-444.) The constitutional challenge made by defendant is an issue of law that we may decide without reference to the particular sentenc......
  • Horton, In re, No. S012531
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 12, 1991
    ...(1966) 384 U.S. 1, 7-8, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 1248-1249, 16 L.Ed.2d 314), whether to waive the right to trial by jury (People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443-444, 5 Cal.Rptr. 871, 353 P.2d 583), whether to waive the right to counsel (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834, 95 S.Ct. 252......
  • People v. Daniels, S095868
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 31, 2017
    ...art. I, § 16.) Waiver must be "express[ed] in words ... and will not be implied from a defendant's conduct." ( People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443–444, 5 Cal.Rptr. 871, 353 P.2d 583 ( Holmes ).) Moreover, a court may not accept a defendant's waiver of a jury trial unless the waiver "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
117 cases
  • Soule v. General Motors Corp., No. S033144
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • October 27, 1994
    ...35 Cal.3d 86, 104-105, 197 Cal.Rptr. 52, 672 P.2d 835), ineffectual waiver of right to jury trial (see, e.g., People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 5 Cal.Rptr. 871, 353 P.2d 583), and discrimination in jury selection (see e.g., People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 283, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890......
  • People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007), A113729
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2007
    ...claim of deprivation of the fundamental constitutional rights to jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443-444.) The constitutional challenge made by defendant is an issue of law that we may decide without reference to the particular sentenc......
  • Horton, In re, No. S012531
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 12, 1991
    ...(1966) 384 U.S. 1, 7-8, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 1248-1249, 16 L.Ed.2d 314), whether to waive the right to trial by jury (People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443-444, 5 Cal.Rptr. 871, 353 P.2d 583), whether to waive the right to counsel (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834, 95 S.Ct. 252......
  • People v. Daniels, S095868
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 31, 2017
    ...art. I, § 16.) Waiver must be "express[ed] in words ... and will not be implied from a defendant's conduct." ( People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442, 443–444, 5 Cal.Rptr. 871, 353 P.2d 583 ( Holmes ).) Moreover, a court may not accept a defendant's waiver of a jury trial unless the waiver "......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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