People v. Huntoon

California Court of Appeal

People v. Huntoon

41 Cal. App. 392

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 6, 1919

DocketCrim. No. 642

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Cal. App. 392 (People v. Huntoon) 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. Huntoon, 41 Cal. App. 392 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

JAMES, J.

On this appeal taken from the judgment of imprisonment the sole question presented is as to the alleged error of the trial judge in refusing to submit to a jury the question of the sanity of the defendant. The judgment was entered after plea of guilty had been made to a charge of forgery. Before sentence was pronounced a physician was called by the defendant and he testified that, in his opinion, based upon a brief observation of the defendant, he was not rational. [1] However, his testimony did not produce in the mind of the trial judge a sufficient doubt as to the defendant’s sanity, and we think that the mere opinion of a medical witness was not sufficient to compel a determination of the question in the defendant’s favor, but that the trial judge had discretion to make the ruling which he caused to be entered. (People v. Hettick, 126 Cal. 425, [58 Pac. 918]; People v. Keyes, 178 Cal. 794, [175 Pac. 6].).

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

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

JAMES, J.

On this appeal taken from the judgment of imprisonment the sole question presented is as to the alleged error of the trial judge in refusing to submit to a jury the question of the sanity of the defendant. The judgment was entered after plea of guilty had been made to a charge of forgery. Before sentence was pronounced a physician was called by the defendant and he testified that, in his opinion, based upon a brief observation of the defendant, he was not rational. [1] However, his testimony did not produce in the mind of the trial judge a sufficient doubt as to the defendant’s sanity, and we think that the mere opinion of a medical witness was not sufficient to compel a determination of the question in the defendant’s favor, but that the trial judge had discretion to make the ruling which he caused to be entered. (People v. Hettick, 126 Cal. 425, [58 Pac. 918]; People v. Keyes, 178 Cal. 794, [175 Pac. 6].).

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Cal. App. 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-huntoon-calctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack