Gilmore

People v. Gilmore

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 737·1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 191·121 P. 697
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 29, 1911Crim. No. 348.California1,059 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lennon, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of manslaughter, and appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Assuming, without deciding, that subdivision 3 of section 199, and subdivision 13 of section 200, Code of Civil Procedure, must be read in connection with section 1072 of the Penal Code, and that when so read these sections formulate a valid challenge for cause to a juror in a criminal case, still it does not appear from the record before us that there was any foundation in fact for such a challenge to the prospective jurors Love, Thoroe and Holliday. Prom the testimony of these three talesmen upon their voir dire it appears that each .had served as jurors in certain cases pending and decided in the same court within a year of the trial of the defendant in the case at bar. It appears further as a matter of course that upon the termination of each case the jury was discharged, but the order of a trial court discharging a jury upon reaching a verdict in any given case does not mean that the individual jurors are thereby relieved from future jury duty. In the instance of juror Holliday, it affirmatively appears that he had never been' finally…

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.