People v. Hill

79 P. 845, 146 Cal. 145, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 499
California Supreme Court·Decided January 31, 1905·No. Crim. No. 1174.·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

Defendant was charged in the information with a felony,—to wit, an attempt to bribe a witness, contrary to the provisions of section 137 of the Penal Code. The defendant pleaded not guilty; a trial was had on the issue; evidence was introduced by both parties, and after it was all in and the parties had rested, the court advised and directed the jury to find for defendant upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a conviction. Thereupon the jury rendered a verdict of not guilty. The people appeal from the order advising and directing the jury to acquit.

The respondent was tried on a valid information, in a court of competent jurisdiction, and was acquitted by the verdict of the jury. “Jeopardy” therefore attached, and respondent cannot again be tried for the said alleged crime. Under these circumstances, and as held in prior decisions of this court, it would be a vain thing to consider the general questions discussed by appellant. (People v. Horn, 70 Cal. 17; People v. Roberts, 114 Cal. 67; People v. Terrill, 132 Cal. 497.) In the eases just cited the orders appealed from were affirmed, and we will follow that course here.

The order apealed from is affirmed.

Lorigan, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.

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

People v. Hill, 79 P. 845, 146 Cal. 145, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 499 (Cal. 1905).

79 P. 845 (People v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Serrato
512 P.2d 289 (California Supreme Court, 1973)
People v. Valenti
49 Cal. 2d 199 (California Supreme Court, 1957)
People v. Matiasevich
12 Cal. App. 2d 759 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1936)
In Re Application of Harron
217 P. 728 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
Schultz v. State
114 N.W. 505 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1908)