From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cuintano

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1860
15 Cal. 327 (Cal. 1860)


         Appeal from the Eleventh District.

         The prisoner was in custody, on an offence charged, before the commencement of the term of the Court of Sessions at which the indictment was found. He was committed to jail, June 26th, 1859, and the term began August 8th, 1859.

         Defendant challenged the panel of the Grand Jury, because not summoned and drawn as provided in secs. 4, 5, and 6 of the act concerning jurors. (Wood's Dig. 511.) The record does not show whether the jurors were summoned from the body of the county or the bystanders. The order of Court directs the Sheriff to summon them from the body of the county.


         The order of Court should have been served on the Sheriff. (Wood's Dig. 511, sec. 12.) The jury were taken from by-standers.

          M. E. Mills, for Appellant, argued that this case did not come within the rule in People v. Rodriguez, 10 Cal. 50, because the defendant, here, was in custody long before the term of Court commenced, and there was no necessity of summoning a Grand Jury, under secs. 11 and 12 of the act relative to jurors, (Wood's Dig. 511,) instead of in the usual mode, under secs. 4 and 5 of said act; and that the law intended to have the indictment found as long before trial as circumstances would permit. (Sedg. Stat. and Const. Law, 230, 231, 238, 239; Freeman v. City of New York, 5 Sandf. 16; Rosely v. Mattingby, 14 B. Mon. 87; Fisher v. Blight, 2 Cranch, 358, 359; Case v. Wildrige, 4 Ind. 51; Commonwealth v. Duane, 1 Binn. 601; Corn v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53 and 89; Attorney-General McKoy v. Detroit and Erie Plank Road Co., 2 Mich. 138; Burnham v. Hays, 3 Cal. 168; Morrill v. Gorham, 6 Id. 41 .)

          Thos. H. Williams, Attorney-General, for Respondent, cited People v. Rodriguez, 10 Cal. 50; People v. Beatty, 14 Id.; Wood's Dig. 511, sec. 11.

         JUDGES: Baldwin, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J., concurring.


         BALDWIN, Judge

         Defendant was indicted for and convicted of murder.

         1. The first error assigned, is the mode of empanneling the Grand Jury by the Court of Sessions. This was done by special order, made by the Court after the offence charged upon the prisoner, and when he was in custody. By sec. 11 of the act concerning jurors, (Wood's Dig. 511,) the discretionary power is given to the Judge, in a case like this, to cause an order to be entered upon the minutes of the Court, etc. We see nothing in the facts of this case to distinguish it from that of People v. Rodriguez, 10 Cal. 50. See also People v. Beatty, 14 Cal. 566 .

         2. There is nothing in the point that a copy of the order was not regularly served on the Sheriff. The object of this provision is that the officer may go on and summon the jury, and if he has done this in the proper mode, the end is answered. Nor is the point well taken, that the Sheriff summoned bystanders, and not men from the body of the county.

         We see no error in the record. The judgment is affirmed, and the Court below will fix a day to carry the sentence into execution.

Summaries of

People v. Cuintano

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1860
15 Cal. 327 (Cal. 1860)
Case details for

People v. Cuintano

Case Details


Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 1, 1860


15 Cal. 327 (Cal. 1860)

Citing Cases

People v. Moice

As to the impanneling of the Grand Jury. This point has been passed upon and determined in the case of People…