Struve

Defendant was convicted of violating section 274 of the Penal Code (abortion). He has appealed.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the court committed prejudicial error in not permitting defense counsel to make an opening statement to the jury at the conclusion of the prosecution’s opening statement. Defendant asserts that “the concepts and ideas of a jury could be easily swayed at the outset of the ease by hearing all the gwresome details as outlined by the District Attorney.” He also argues that the jurors, having first heard the opening statement of the prosecution, followed by the evidence on behalf of the state, would not be able to weigh defendant’s evidence with fair and unbiased minds.

The order of procedure in a criminal trial is governed by section 1093 of the Penal Code. Nowhere in that section is a defendant given the express right to make an opening statement to the jury immediately after the prosecutor’s opening statement. In commenting on that code section with respect to this matter, the court, in People v. Cryder, 90 Cal. App.2d 194 , stated, at page 204 [ 202 P.2d 765 ] : “. . . section 1093 of the Penal Code in prescribing the order of proceedings at a trial,…