Ex parte Ross

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 813·82 Cal. 109·22 P. 1086
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 18, 1889No. 20630California242 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beatty, J.

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The petition shows that the petitioner has been accused of robbery by information filed October 12, 1889. October 27th he was put upon trial. After the evidence was all in, a juroivwas by accident disabled from attending court, and the jury was necessarily discharged. Petitioner thereupon demanded an immediate trial, but the superior court continued the further hearing of the case to February 4, 1890. December 14, 1889, petitioner moved the superior court to dismiss the information and discharge him from custody, on the ground that he had not been brought to trial within sixty days after information filed. His motion was denied, and hence this petition.

Section 1382 of the Penal Code is relied upon. It is as follows:—

The case made by the petition is not within the section. Petitioner was brought to trial within sixty days. There was a mistrial, and the case was necessarily continued. Conceding that the court had no power to continue it for more than sixty days without petitioner’s consent, that period has not expired. Non constat that another trial may not be had before the expiration of sixty days, notwithstanding the order for…

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.