People v. Robinson

California Supreme Court

People v. Robinson

3 P. 607, 65 Cal. 136, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 473

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedApril 1, 1884

DocketNo. 10,913

StatusPublished

This text of 3 P. 607 (People v. Robinson) 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. Robinson, 3 P. 607, 65 Cal. 136, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 473 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

The court did not, as appellant’s counsel claims, “charge the jury that under the information their verdict must be either guilty of robbery, guilty of grand larceny, or not guilty ”j but did charge them that they might find a verdict of guilty of either of the offenses above specified, or might find a verdict of acquittal, as they deemed proper. The jury were not told that they could not find any other verdict, and the court was not requested to charge them that they could.

It appears that when the jury were leaving the court-room on their way to the jury-room the clerk handed them three forms of verdict corresponding to those mentioned, and that they returned one of them as their verdict. That is, they found the defendant guilty of grand larceny. This does not, in our opinion, constitute an error, or even an irregularity.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

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

Sharpstein, J.

The court did not, as appellant’s counsel claims, “charge the jury that under the information their verdict must be either guilty of robbery, guilty of grand larceny, or not guilty ”j but did charge them that they might find a verdict of guilty of either of the offenses above specified, or might find a verdict of acquittal, as they deemed proper. The jury were not told that they could not find any other verdict, and the court was not requested to charge them that they could.

It appears that when the jury were leaving the court-room on their way to the jury-room the clerk handed them three forms of verdict corresponding to those mentioned, and that they returned one of them as their verdict. That is, they found the defendant guilty of grand larceny. This does not, in our opinion, constitute an error, or even an irregularity.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 P. 607, 65 Cal. 136, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-robinson-cal-1884.