People v. Bigelow

California Court of Appeal

People v. Bigelow

155 P. 142, 27 Cal. App. 507, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 174

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 27, 1915

DocketCrim. No. 298.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 P. 142 (People v. Bigelow) 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. Bigelow, 155 P. 142, 27 Cal. App. 507, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 174 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Defendant was indicted for having violated the Local Option Law. Before the indictment was found he was subpoenaed to appear as a witness before the grand jury, as in the case of People v. Knowles, (Crim. No. 297), ante, p. 498, this day decided. When before the grand jury the district attorney informed him of the nature of the charge against him then under investigation, to which he added: “Now, of course, the grand jury can’t require of you any testimony being you are an interested party, or compel you to testify; they can simply give you an opportunity to explain this matter away, if you wish; of course, any testimony *508 you give is really considered a free and voluntary statement on your part and not compulsory, and if any testimony is given it can be used against you if it is detrimental in any manner; now, with this statement, do you wish to make a statement in connection with this matter? Mr. Bigelow: I would like to; I would be willing to.” His testimony then follows and was used in finding the indictment.

When brought to trial defendant made a motion to dismiss the indictment and discharge defendant upon the ground stated in People v. Knowles and the court granted the motion. The appeal is from this order and presents the same questions involved in People v. Knowles. If there is any substantial difference between that case and the present one it tends to ■ strengthen the view we have taken in the Knowles case and to confirm the opinion we have felt constrained to express.

The order is affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 26, 1915, and the following opinion then rendered thereon.

The application for hearing in this court after decision by the district court of appeal of the third district is denied, for the reasons stated in our opinion filed in denying such a petition in the case of People v. Knowles, (Crim. No. 297), ante, p. 498.

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

THE COURT.

Defendant was indicted for having violated the Local Option Law. Before the indictment was found he was subpoenaed to appear as a witness before the grand jury, as in the case of People v. Knowles, (Crim. No. 297), ante, p. 498, this day decided. When before the grand jury the district attorney informed him of the nature of the charge against him then under investigation, to which he added: “Now, of course, the grand jury can’t require of you any testimony being you are an interested party, or compel you to testify; they can simply give you an opportunity to explain this matter away, if you wish; of course, any testimony *508 you give is really considered a free and voluntary statement on your part and not compulsory, and if any testimony is given it can be used against you if it is detrimental in any manner; now, with this statement, do you wish to make a statement in connection with this matter? Mr. Bigelow: I would like to; I would be willing to.” His testimony then follows and was used in finding the indictment.

When brought to trial defendant made a motion to dismiss the indictment and discharge defendant upon the ground stated in People v. Knowles and the court granted the motion. The appeal is from this order and presents the same questions involved in People v. Knowles. If there is any substantial difference between that case and the present one it tends to ■ strengthen the view we have taken in the Knowles case and to confirm the opinion we have felt constrained to express.

The order is affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 26, 1915, and the following opinion then rendered thereon.

The application for hearing in this court after decision by the district court of appeal of the third district is denied, for the reasons stated in our opinion filed in denying such a petition in the case of People v. Knowles, (Crim. No. 297), ante, p. 498.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 P. 142, 27 Cal. App. 507, 1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bigelow-calctapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack