midpage

People v. DarrPeople v. Darr

California Supreme Court
Oct 12, 1882
No. 10,726
Reporters:
,
The Court:

The evidence upon which the defendant was convicted, was of that kind commonly denominated “ circumstantial,” ‍​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‍but it was not so clearly insufficient to justify the verdict as to justify this Court in reversing the order denying the motion for a new trial on that ground.

The challenge to the ‍​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‍panel of jurors composed of persons summoned by order of the Court from the bystanders, was not based upon any of the grounds specified in the Code, and therefore it was not error ‍​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‍to disallow it.

The name of the District Attorney was subscribed to the information by his deputy. That was sufficient. It does not positively appear whether or not the juror McPeak was sworn to ‍​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‍try the cause. So long as it does not appear that he was not sworn, it is safe to presume that the Court performed its duty. Taken as a whole, we think that ‍​‌​‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‍the instructions given to the jury fairly stated the law applicable to the case.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Darr
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 12, 1882
Citations: 61 Cal. 554; 1882 Cal. LEXIS 665; No. 10,726
Docket Number: No. 10,726
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
Log In