From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Colson

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1875
49 Cal. 679 (Cal. 1875)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

         The defendant was indicted for murder, and convicted of murder in the second degree, and appealed.

         COUNSEL

          John B. Howard, for the Appellant.

         Thos. P. Ryan, for the People.


         JUDGES: Wallace, C. J.

         OPINION

          WALLACE, Judge

         1. The first supposed error relied upon to reverse the judgment is, that the challenge of the District Attorney made against Clarkson, for implied bias, was improperly sustained, and he erroneously excluded from serving as a juror at the trial of the case. It is sufficient answer to this, however, that the action of the Court in sustaining such a challenge is not the subject of an exception. (Penal Code, Sec. 1170, subdivision 1; and People v. Murphy , 45 Cal. 137, where the reason of the distinction is adverted to.)

         2. The only other point made for the prisoner is the refusal of the Court below to allow him further time in which to move for a new trial. The verdict had been found on the 18th of January, and he was brought before the Court for judgment on the 22d of the same month. He then applied for further time in which to move for a new trial, which application was then denied, and judgment rendered.

         Upon what grounds the application was based, or by what circumstances it was supported, the record is entirely silent, and the necessary intendment here is that the action of the Court below was correct.

         Judgment and order affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Colson

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1875
49 Cal. 679 (Cal. 1875)
Case details for

People v. Colson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE v. CHRISTIAN COLSON

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 1, 1875

Citations

49 Cal. 679 (Cal. 1875)

Citing Cases

People v. Ray

The result would be that the prisoner would probably be tried against by another competent jury, of which the…

People v. Howard

[1] All intendments and presumptions not contradicted by or inconsistent with the record must be resolved in…