Slike strani
PDF
ePub

jury in minor or petty offenses arising from violations of municipal ordinances, which are not intrinsically criminal, but when the offense may be considered as against the public at large, and where it falls within the legal or common law notion of crime or misdemeanor, and especially where being of such a nature, it is embraced in the criminal code of the state, then the constitution guaranties intended to secure the liberties of the citizen and the right to trial by jury cannot be evaded. So held with reference to a violation of an ordinance against obstructions on sidewalks, such obstructions being also prohibited and declared a nuisance under sections 370, 372 Penal Code. Taylor v. Reynolds, 92, Cal. 573.

Unless a party waives his right to trial by jury in a civil case (where trial by jury. proper), in one of the ways "provided by law," the court has no power to deny him a jury. Farwell v. Murray 104 Cal. 467.

A defendant accused of practicing medicine without a license is entitled to jury trial in police justice's court. The legislature has no right to take away the right to trial by jury in offenses against the public at large, and which fall within the common-law notion of a crime or misdemeanor and which are embraced in the general legislation of the state. Er parte Wong You Ting, 106 Cal. 297.

On a trial of the question of the disbarment of an attorney at law the accused is not entitled to a jury. Sec. 297 of the Code of

Civil Procedure provides for a trial by the court, and that section is not unconstitutional. In re Wharton 114 Cal. 368.

SECTION 8. Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county.

The power of Superior Court to summon a grand jury by an elisor only occurs when the sheriff is in some manner challenged as incompetent. Writ of prohibition will lie to prevent trial of indictment purporting to have been found by a grand jury illegally summoned by an elisor. Bruner v. Superior Court, 92 Cal. 240, Beatty, C. J. and Sharpstein, J. dissenting.

Where a defendant, after examination before a magistrate, was charged by information with grand larceny, and upon trial the jury failed to agree, and the court directed a dismissal of that information, and a new information for embezzlement was filed without re-examination before the magistrate, Held, defendant was not entitled to discharge on habeas corpus, Paterson, J., dissenting. Ex parte Nicholas, 91 Cai. 640.

The information must be filed within one year as is prescribed by law. Section 801, Penal Code. And objection may be raised by demurrer. Section 1004, Id. People v. Ayhens, 85 Cal. 88.

The former constitution [Sec. 8, Art. I], provided that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime (except in cases of petit larceny), unless upon presentment or indictment by grand jury, and it is held by Paterson, J., in dissenting opinion that there are misdemeanors known as infamous crimes which could be prosecuted by indictment (or information) in Superior Court, and that this section is but a re-enactment of the corresponding section in old constitution. Green v. Superior Court, 78 Cal. 565.

For case illustrating irregularities in the manner of drawing grand jury, yet not in excess of the jurisdiction of the court, see Levy v. Wilson, 69 Cal. 105. The grand jury is part of the court by which it is convened, and a person summoned before it as a witness may be punished for contempt for refusing to give evidence. In re Gannon, 69 Cal. 541.

A homicide committed before adoption of the constitution may be prosecuted by information. People v. Campbell, 59 Cal. 243. Sharpstein, McKinstry and Thornton dissenting.

The provision for proceeding by information is not in conflict with section 1, article XIV, of the constitution of United States. Kalloch v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 229. Approved in People v. McCurdy, 68 Id. 576.

Where there has been an examination and commitment by a magistrate, that is sufficient to authorize the filing of an information by

the district attorney. People v. Wheeler, 65 Cal. 77.

A grand jury drawn in 1885 from the list of jurors for that year, does not become dissolved with the beginning of a new year, but may continue as a grand jury in 1886. In re Gannon, 69 Cal. 541, 545.

The district attorney in drawing an information is not controlled by the name which the magistrate may have given to an offense, but must charge defendant with the offense disclosed by the depositions taken before the magistrate. People v. Vierra, 67 Cal. 231. And information may be filed before the shorthand notes of the depositions are written out. Failure to file or transcribe the shorthand notes will not divest the Superior Court of its jurisdiction. People v. Riley, 65 Cal. 107.

The mere ownership by the United States of land or property within a county does not show any federal jurisdiction over crimes committed upon it, as that fact does not oust the jurisdiction of the state; but the ownership must be acquired by purchase with the consent of the legislature, which is held to include the acquisition of property by eminent domain. People v. Collins, 105 Cal. 509.

Persons cannot be prosecuted criminally by means of "information" filed, except after examination and commitment by a magistrate. [Sec. 995 Penal Code.] People v. Napthaly, 105 Cal. 644.

The "information" alluded to in section

682, Penal Code, is the information that is named in the constitution, and proceedings for the removal of civil officers, are excepted from that mode of prosecution. See Sec. 772, Pen. Code; In re Curtis, 108 Cal. 663.

The constitution has omitted all reference to "presentment" by a grand jury as a means of charging persons with a criminal offence, and a grand jury has no authority to proceed by "presentment" for such purpose. In re Grosbois, 109 Cal. 449.

SECTION 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Indictments found, or information laid for publications in newspapers shall be tried in the county where such newspapers have their publication office, or in the county where the party alleged to be libeled resided at the time of the alleged publication, unless the place of trial shall be changed for good cause.

Const. 1849, Art. I, Sec. 9.

The provision as to the trial in the county. where the newspaper is published or in the county where the person alleged to be libeled resides, applies also to the person who causes the libel to be published. All persons guilty of such libels are liable to be tried at the places specified in the constitution, without refer

« PrejšnjaNaprej »