People v. Clark

Good Law
106 Cal. 32·1895 Cal. LEXIS 565·39 P. 53
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 1895No. 21164California2,650 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the state’s prison for the term of twenty years, and this appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, and also from an order made after judgment. This latter order will be first noticed.

Several instructions were requested to be given to the jury by the prosecution and the defendant re *36 spectively, upon each of which the action of the court, whether given, refused, or modified, was duly indorsed. In addition the court gave several oral instructions of its own motion, and these were taken down by the reporter, and afterwards written out; but the fact that they were given was not certified thereon by the court, so as to make them a part of the record. (People v. January, 77 Cal. 179 ; People v. Ah Lee Doon, 97 Cal. 171 ; Pen. Code, sec. 1176.)

Afterward, the defendant moved the court to certify these oral instructions, so as to make them part of the record, and the order denying this motion is the order above mentioned from which an appeal is taken.

The record does not disclose any ground for the refusal of the court to indorse upon such…

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.