People v. Colby

54 Cal. 37
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1879
DocketNo. 10,444
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 54 Cal. 37 (People v. Colby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Colby, 54 Cal. 37 (Cal. 1879).

Opinions

By the Court.

We think the petition for a rehearing should be denied; but as certain questions are considered and apparently decided in the former opinion herein, the determination of which is not absolutely required by the exigencies of the case, that opinion is so far modified as to make the judgment depend exclusively upon our affirmance of the rule as laid down in People v. Southwell, (46 Cal. 142) viz., that a motion to set aside an indictment can only be based upon the grounds enumerated in sec. 995 of the Penal Code, and that the clause that an indictment .shall be set aside where not found as prescribed in the Code will not support a motion to set aside an indictment on the ground that the grand jury was not properly selected, summoned, or impanneled.

The first subdivision of sec. 995 of the Penal Code provides that an indictment must be set aside “ where it is not found, indorsed, or presented as prescribed in this Code.” Sec. 940 provides how an indictment must be found—that is, that it must be concurred in by the constitutional number—twelve. The last mentioned section and 941 and 944 prescribe how an indictment must be indorsed and presented. The first subdivision of sec. 995 by its terms refers to the portions of the Code which prescribe the mode of finding, indorsing, and presenting an indictment. It is equally plain that the third subdivision of the same section cannot be made to refer to those persons “ present during the session ” who themselves constitute the grand jury impanneled and sworn under the direction of the Court.

Rehearing denied.

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

Related

Cummiskey v. Superior Court
839 P.2d 1059 (California Supreme Court, 1992)
Cereghino v. Superior Court
177 Cal. App. 2d 328 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
People v. Jefferson
303 P.2d 1024 (California Supreme Court, 1956)
State v. Brown
267 S.W.2d 682 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1954)
Bennett v. District Court of Tulsa Co.
1945 OK CR 101 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1945)
People v. Kempley
271 P. 478 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
Higgins v. Burton, Judge
232 P. 914 (Utah Supreme Court, 1924)
Corley v. Adair County Court
1913 OK CR 267 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1913)
People v. Hatch
109 P. 1097 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
Evans v. Willis, County Judge
19 L.R.A.N.S. 1050 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Bruner v. Superior Court
28 P. 341 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Territory of Montana v. Pendry
9 Mont. 67 (Montana Supreme Court, 1889)
United States v. Cutler
5 Utah 608 (Utah Supreme Court, 1888)
People v. Murback
30 P. 608 (California Supreme Court, 1883)
People v. Ramirez
56 Cal. 533 (California Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 Cal. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colby-cal-1879.