273 P. 836 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1929
The contention of appellant is that he was not accorded a speedy trial to which he was entitled under article I, section 13, of the constitution, nor a trial within the time provided in sections
[1] Section
Section
Section
"1. When a person has been held to answer for a public offense, if an indictment is not found or an information filed against him, within thirty days thereafter.
"2. If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within sixty days after the finding of the indictment, or filing of the information."
[2] If section
[3] Section
The defendant is not entitled to relief under article I, section 13, of the constitution, under the authority of In reMatter of Tirey L. Ford on Habeas Corpus,
[4] Finally, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction which is set out on page 28 of the clerk's transcript. He makes no mention of this point, however, in his argument. The proposed instruction *186
calls attention specifically to a particular witness, calling him by name, and directs the jury that under certain circumstances it should receive his testimony with great caution. There is no claim that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury in its general instructions on the credibility of witnesses; and the defendant was not entitled to have an instruction as to the credibility of a particular witness. (Jones v. SouthernPacific Co.,
Judgment affirmed.
Houser, Acting P.J., and York, J., concurred.