People v. Workman
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
7 Cal.2d 176 (1936) THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JAMES F. WORKMAN, Appellant.
Crim. No. 4015. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.
August 5, 1936. George Olshausen and George Anderson for Appellant.
U.S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Ralph H. Cowing, Deputy Attorney- General, for Respondent.
THE COURT.
A hearing was granted in this court after decision by the District Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, in order to consider defendant's contention *177 that reversible error had been committed by the trial court in passing upon the competency of jurors. It has subsequently appeared, and it is conceded by respondent, that after a prior trial, defendant's motion for a new trial was granted, and notice of appeal from the order granting such new trial was given by respondent. [1] Hence, an appeal was pending at the time the present trial took place, and the court below was without jurisdiction to try the defendant. The judgment must therefore be reversed on this ground, and it is unnecessary to determine the other issues raised by the defendant.
The judgment is reversed.
Cited by
- People v. Rittger Crim. 6838 · 1961-05-23
- People v. Owens Crim. 3916 · 1945-11-30