People v. Kinsey

51 Cal. 278
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1876
DocketNo. 10,186
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 278 (People v. Kinsey) 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. Kinsey, 51 Cal. 278 (Cal. 1876).

Opinion

By the Court:

The defendants were indicted for murder, and at the trial were convicted of manslaughter. A new trial was granted by the District Court on the defendants’ motion, and at the second trial the defendants severally, in addition to the plea of not guilty, filed pleas of former acquittal. The jury on the second trial found the defendants guilty of manslaughter, but failed to find on the issues raised by the pleas of former acquittal, and were discharged without a verdict on these issues. A judgment having been entered against the defendants on the verdict convicting them of manslaughter, they have appealed from the judgment and from the order denying their motion for a new trial.

The defendants contend that the failure of the jury to find upon the issue of former acquittal vitiated the entire verdict, and that no judgment could be entered upon it.

Section 1151 of the Penal Code provides that “upon a plea of a former conviction or acquittal of the same offense” the verdict should be either “for the people” or “for the defendant.” If there be a plea of “not guilty,” and also a plea of a former conviction or acquittal, the defendant is entitled to a verdict on each plea, and until there is such a verdict, there can be no judgment of conviction.

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

Related

People v. Greer
184 P.2d 512 (California Supreme Court, 1947)
People v. Gelardi
175 P.2d 855 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
People v. Frank
241 P. 924 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
In Re Application of Harron
217 P. 728 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
State v. Crawford
179 P. 511 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1919)
State v. Gutke
139 P. 346 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1914)
Munsee v. McKellar
116 P. 1024 (Utah Supreme Court, 1911)
Ex Parte King
101 P. 810 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Storm v. Territory of Arizona
94 P. 1099 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1908)
State v. Creechley
75 P. 384 (Utah Supreme Court, 1904)
State v. Kieffer
95 N.W. 289 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
State v. Childers
49 P. 801 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1897)
People v. Tucker
47 P. 111 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
State v. O'Brien
47 P. 103 (Montana Supreme Court, 1896)
Territory of New Mexico v. Barrett
8 N.M. 70 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1895)
People v. Kerm
8 Utah 268 (Utah Supreme Court, 1892)
McCormack v. Phillips
34 N.W. 39 (Supreme Court of Dakota, 1887)
People v. Fuqua
61 Cal. 377 (California Supreme Court, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kinsey-cal-1876.