From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ferguson

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1867
34 Cal. 309 (Cal. 1867)


         Appeal from the District Court, Eleventh Judicial District, Calaveras County.

         The defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Calaveras County, and tried and convicted in said District Court of the crime of murder. From the judgment of said conviction defendant appealed to this Court. The record on appeal contains a statement, signed by defendant's attorney, in the nature of a bill of exceptions, setting forth what purports to have been the ruling and decision of the Court on a motion made by defendant, founded on affidavit, for a continuance of the trial of said cause for one term of said Court, denying said motion; also, in the rejection by the Court of certain evidence proffered by defendant on the trial of said cause, and that defendant, at the time of said several decisions, duly excepted thereto, to which statement is attached a certificate, signed by the District Attorney of said county, setting forth that the same is agreed by him to be correct. No motion for a new trial was made in the Court below, nor is there any statement or bill of exceptions, (except the foregoing,) containing the errors complained of by appellant, in the record on appeal.


         A. P. Dudley, and Coffroth & Spaulding, for Appellant.

         J. G. McCullough, Attorney General, for the People.

         There is no settled bill of exceptions or statement contained in the record which this Court can consider. (Crim. Pr. Act, Secs. 435-37; People v. Thompson , 28 Cal. 218; People v. Romero , 18 Cal. 92.)

         JUDGES: Sanderson, J.


          SANDERSON, Judge

         We cannot reach the points made in behalf of the appellant. The errors, of which complaint is made, occurred at the trial, and can be reviewed only upon bills of exceptions settled and signed by the Judge. None such are found in the record. The agreement signed by the District Attorney, to the effect that certain proceedings were had and certain exceptions taken on behalf of the appellant, cannot be taken as a substitute. The agreement amounts, perhaps, to a bill of exceptions settled and signed by the District Attorney, but unfortunately for the appellant the District Attorney is not authorized to settle or allow bills of exceptions. The statute expressly provides that it shall be done by the Judge. (Crim. Prac. Act, Sec. 435; People v. Thompson , 28 Cal. 214.) No one else is authorized to act in his place.

         Judgment affirmed.

Summaries of

People v. Ferguson

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1867
34 Cal. 309 (Cal. 1867)
Case details for

People v. Ferguson

Case Details


Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1867


34 Cal. 309 (Cal. 1867)

Citing Cases

People v. Trim

In a criminal case, on appeal, the stipulations of attorneys, or certificate of respondent's attorney, is no…

People v. Schultz

It has been repeatedly decided in this state that before the proceedings of the trial court can be reviewed…