People v. Beck

California Court of Appeal

People v. Beck

95 Cal. App. 257

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 4, 1928

DocketCrim. No. 1063

StatusPublished

This text of 95 Cal. App. 257 (People v. Beck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Beck, 95 Cal. App. 257 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The defendant was charged, under subdivision one of section 261 of the Penal Code, with the crime of rape. He was found “guilty as charged in the information” and was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. He has appealed from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The court failed to instruct the jury “to recommend by their verdict whether the punishment shall be by imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison,” as provided by section 264 of the Penal Code, but instructed the jury that “the question of punishment is one exclusively for the court and with which a jury has no concern and which a jury has no right to consider.” This was prejudicial error requiring a reversal. (People v. Currie, 93 Cal. App. 544 [269 Pac. 770]; People v. Sachau, 78 Cal. App. 702 [248 [258]*258Pac. 960]; People v. Rambaud, 78 Cal. App. 685 [248 Pac. 954].)

The judgment and the order are reversed and a new trial ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

The defendant was charged, under subdivision one of section 261 of the Penal Code, with the crime of rape. He was found “guilty as charged in the information” and was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. He has appealed from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The court failed to instruct the jury “to recommend by their verdict whether the punishment shall be by imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison,” as provided by section 264 of the Penal Code, but instructed the jury that “the question of punishment is one exclusively for the court and with which a jury has no concern and which a jury has no right to consider.” This was prejudicial error requiring a reversal. (People v. Currie, 93 Cal. App. 544 [269 Pac. 770]; People v. Sachau, 78 Cal. App. 702 [248 [258]*258Pac. 960]; People v. Rambaud, 78 Cal. App. 685 [248 Pac. 954].)

The judgment and the order are reversed and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 Cal. App. 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beck-calctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack