Douglas

People v. Douglas

Good Law
10 Cal. Rptr. 188·187 Cal. App. 2d 802·1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1460
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 29, 1960Crim. 7040California3,951 words

Opinion

Opinion

Valles, J.

On sufficient evidence a jury convicted defendants Douglas and Meyes of 10 counts of robbery (counts 1-6, 8-10, 13), one count of assault with intent to commit murder (count 7), and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (counts 11, 12). The jury also found that defendant Meyes had been convicted of burglary in 1948, robbery in 1950 and in 1951, and had served terms of imprisonment therefor. Defendants appeal from the judgments and from orders denying their motions for new trials.

Defendants contend it was essential they be indicted by a grand jury and that it was error to proceed by information. The point has no merit. Prosecution of criminal eases by information is an alternative remedy. Due process of law does not require an indictment by a grand jury as defendants assert. (People v. Thwaits, 101 Cal.App.2d 674, 677 [ 226 P.2d 58 ].)

At the time defendants were arraigned on August 18, 1959, the public defender was appointed their counsel. When the cause was called for trial before Judge Rhone on September 30, 1959, defendants, represented by Deputy Public Defender Norman R. Atkins, filed an affidavit of prejudice and made an oral peremptory challenge under section 170.6

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.