gno.law

People v. Quinn

California Supreme Court · Crim. No. 589. · 1900-02-07 · Published · 59 P. 987 · 127 Cal. 542 · 1900 Cal. LEXIS 689

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DAVID QUINN, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Sacramento County
Trial judge
Joseph W. Hughes
Outcome
affirmed — order are affirmed.
Area
criminal
Panel
The Court (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

THE COURT.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of manslaughter and also from an order denying his motion for a new trial. He insists that the names of the witnesses examined by the grand jury were not indorsed upon the indictment, the statute containing such a requirement. This contention rests upon the fact that the name of a certain witness before the grand jury, to wit, G. W. Ogden, is indorsed upon the indorsement as - Ogden. The purpose of the aforesaid requirement of the law is to inform both the people and the defendant of the names of the witnesses upon whose testimony the indictment is based, and thereby to give them both an oppor *543 tunity to secure these witnesses at the trial.

(People v. Northey, 77 Cal. 629.) In the case at bar there was a noncompliance with the statute, but the irregularity was harmless, as the defendant almost immediately after the finding of the indictment knew the particular person who was named as Ogden upon the indictment.

(People v. Crowey, 56 Cal. 36.)

It is next claimed that the court committed error in refusing certain instructions offered by defendant. In this regard it is sufficient to say that all matters material and legally sound in the rejected instructions were given by the court in its charge to the jury.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment and order are affirmed.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by