21 P.2d 964 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1933
Defendant was charged in two informations filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles County with nine counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds. Defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, but later withdrew the plea of not guilty. When the case was called for trial, amended informations were filed to include two prior convictions of felony. Defendant being arraigned on the amended informations, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and admitted the prior convictions. He was tried by the court without a jury on the issue of insanity, was found sane and convicted of the crime charged. This is an appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to the findings of the court and from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
While defendant was present in the courtroom at the commencement of his trial, his attorney entered the plea of not *609 guilty by reason of insanity, and at the same time defendant himself admitted the prior convictions.
Appellant now contends that the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is in reality a plea of guilty as to the offense charged, and therefore must be made by defendant personally. Appellant also contends that he did not personally waive his right to a trial by jury and that he was thus deprived of his constitutional right to a jury trial.
[1] We believe there is no merit in this latter point in view of the circumstances that took place before the trial court at the commencement of the trial, to wit:
"The Court: Now, Mr. Pincus, this is the time set for trial on these two amended informations. They have been consolidated, and we will try them together, go to trial on both informations. You are entitled to be tried by a jury of 12 persons, or you may waive the jury and be tried by the court without a jury. What do you want to do? Whatever you want to do we will agree to.
"The Defendant: I want to be tried before you.
"The Court: You want to be tried by the court without a jury. Now, Mr. Fox, do you waive a jury in behalf of your client?
"Mr. Fox: Yes, your Honor.
"The Court: Do you waive a jury in behalf of the state.
"Mr. Thomas: We will consent to the waiver, your Honor."
The answer of the defendant, "I want to be tried before you," in reply to the court's explanation was a sufficient waiver of the right to a trial by jury.
[2] Taking up appellant's first point as to his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, section
In the case of People v. Hickman,
Although it might appear from the above that the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is an admission of guilt, and although it may plausibly be argued that such plea must be made by defendant himself in open court, as provided by section
The judgment and order are affirmed.
Conrey, P.J., and Houser, J., concurred.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on June 1, 1933. *611