People v. Johnson

Good Law
104 Cal. 418·1894 Cal. LEXIS 928·38 P. 91
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 28, 1894No. 21137California452 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Temple, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and, his motion for a new trial having been denied, he appeals from the judgment and from the order.

Appellant’s first point is that the jury was irregularly impaneled. It seems that when the case was called for trial counsel for the people and for the defense each announced themselves as ready for trial. The judge then said, “call the jurors.” The bailiff then proceeded to select from the persons present twelve men, who were regularly returned under order of the court to serve as jurors in that department. The bailiff proceeded to place the twelve men in the jury-box, and the clerk went to the jury-box, and, interrogating each man as to his name, wrote it down on a sheet of paper; then, returning to his place, called the names, and they were sworn to answer as to their qualifications; they were accepted and sworn as jurors.

This'mode of impaneling a jury differs materially from that prescribed in the statutes of the state, and if it had been done against the objection of defendant it would have constituted sufficient reason for reversal. But no objection was raised

Appellant contends that the irregularity is one that…

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.