gno.law

People v. Sanchez

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 317. · 1914-02-02 · Published · 139 P. 820 · 23 Cal. App. 742 · 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 296

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. PAUL SANCHEZ, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Riverside County
Trial judge
F. E. Densmore
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. [Crim. No.
Area
criminal
Panel
Nathaniel P. Conrey (author)

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 — Conrey

CONREY, P. J.

The defendant, having been found “guilty of assault with intent to commit the crime of rape as charged in the information,” moved the court for a new trial “on the ground that the court erred in the decision of a question of law arising during the course of the trial.” Judgment having been duly entered on the verdict, defendant appeals from the order denying said motion-for a new trial. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

The reporter’s transcript shows only one objection made on behalf of defendant during the course of the trial, and we may assume that the ruling made on that objection constitutes the error to which the defendant’s counsel referred. This also appears from his brief on the appeal. By the ruling referred to the court overruled the defendant’s objection to a question propounded by the district attorney to the prosecuting witness. As the fact testified to by othe witness in response to that question had already been proved by necessary inference from answers previously given, and is established without conflict as a fact in the case, the court’s ruling, even if it was wrong, could not be prejudicial error.

The suggestion in appellant’s brief, of a defect in the information, cannot be considered, since there is no appeal from the judgment.

(People v. Turner, 39 Cal. 370; Pen. Code, secs. 1012, 1239.)

The order denying the motion for a new trial is affirmed.

James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by