Wooley

People v. Wooley

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 2d 669·1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 119·59 P.2d 1065
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 29, 1936Crim. 1496California2,153 words

Opinion

Opinion

Plummer, J.

The defendant was convicted of an offense specified in section 285 of the Penal Code. His motion for new trial having been denied, this appeal is prosecuted from the order denying the motion for new trial, and from the judgment following the verdict of conviction. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not questioned. There is presented for our consideration certain alleged errors committed by the trial court hearing the action, and misconduct on the part of the district attorney, which we will consider in the following order:

At about 9 :47 P. M., after the jury had been deliberating upon the case between four and five hours, the jury was brought into court and the following took place: “The Court: Mr. Weniger, I don’t want you to tell me how the jury stands for one side or the other, but could you tell me what proportion are their votes? Don’t tell me whether it is one side or the other. Foreman: I don’t understand how you want me to state it. The Court: In taking the vote on two possible verdicts. Mr. Foreman: You mean guilty or not guilty? The Court: I don’t want you to say how many for guilty, or how many for not guilty. I would like to know what…

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.