94 Cal. 212 | Cal. | 1892
Lead Opinion
The defendant was tried and convicted of the crime of murder. He appealed to this court from the judgment rendered in the premises, and from an order refusing a new trial. The judgment was affirmed, but the order denying a new trial was reversed. The case is reported in 85 Cal. 350-361, where it was said, among other things: —
“ The order denying the defendant a new trial is reversed, with instructions to the court below to vacate the same and rehear the motion, allowing the defendant to introduce the evidence excluded on the former hearing, and the people to rebut the same by other evidence, if it is desired.”
Accordingly, the motion for a new trial was again heard, and the evidence, which showed that the jury had read newspaper articles during the trial, which it is claimed had a tendency to influence their verdict, was allowed to be introduced in the defendant’s behalf.
The people then showed, over the objections of the defendant, by the jurors themselves, that the reading of those articles had not tended to or had influenced them in any way prejudicial to the defendant in rendering their verdict.
The admission of this rebutting evidence is urged by the defendant as prejudicial error. And upon the determination of that question the whole matter turns.
In the former decision this court said:—•
“An attempt on the part of any person, whether through the medium of a newspaper or otherwise, to influence a jury by any improper means to bring in a verdict against a defendant is a palpable violation of his right to a fair and impartial trial, and if it appears to the court to have had such an effect, a new trial should be granted.
The evidence of the jurors was in support of their verdict, and it is plainly evident the appellate court intended that the trial court should permit the defendant to introduce the evidence he did on the hearing of the motion, and that the people might show, if they could, either that the prejudicial articles in the newspaper were not read by the jury, or that, if they had read them, that “ they were not in any way influenced by them.”
In obedience to this command of the superior tribunal, the court below allowed the people to rebut what might be a presumption that the jury were influenced by the articles which they had read, and to show by their evidence, if it could be done, that the jury had not been thus influenced, and thus sustain their verdict.
This view of the matter is in accordance with the case of People v. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 352, and cases cited, where it said: —
Belcher, C., and Vancliee, C., concurred.
The order denying a new trial is affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
I concur in the judgment.
De Haven, J., and Harrison, J., dissented.