Cline

People v. Cline

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 691·83 Cal. 374·23 P. 391
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 5, 1890No. 20585California1,311 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

C. — The defendant was tried and convicted of grand larceny. From the judgment rendered in the premises, an order overruling his motion in arrest of judgment, and an order refusing him a new trial, he appeals. The order denying the motion in arrest of judgment is not appealable. (People v. Majors, 65 Cal. 100 ; 52 Am. Rep. 295 .)

*376 It is claimed that the record does not disclose the fact that the defendant personally pleaded not guilty to the information filed against him; that for this reason it does not appear that the court below had jurisdiction to try him.

The record shows that the defendant was arraigned, and asked for further time in which to plead. A demurrer was then filed by his counsel, and overruled by the court; “ whereupon W. I). Grady, of counsel for defendant, in open court, pleads not guilty of the offense charged in the information, for and on behalf of the defendant, J. G. Cline.”

There is nothing, therefore, in the record which goes to show that the defendant was not present when (after due arraignment theretofore had) his counsel entered the plea of not guilty.

In People v. Huff, 72 Cal. 118 , it was contended that the judgment should be reversed,…

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.