People v. Sears

18 Cal. 635, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 257
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1861·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

Judgment affirmed. The Court had a right to make the rule, for its own government and that of counsel; and we see nothing in this case to show any such unjust and injurious operation of it as to induce us to interfere, if we could do so in any case, to reverse a judgment because it had been enforced in a particular instance.

It is true that injustice may be done a defendant in some cases by refusing to consider instructions because not offered before the argument, since such instructions may be necessary in consequence of the propositions or argument of the prosecuting attorney. In such cases, the Court should either give the instructions of defendant, or make such explanations of its own as would put the law correctly before the jury.

A conclusive answer is, that the instructions are not correct. It is immaterial whether the reason for - refusing the instructions be good or not, as we do not try the sufficiency of the arguments of the Judge, but only the soundness of his conclusions.

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

People v. Sears, 18 Cal. 635, 1861 Cal. LEXIS 257 (Cal. 1861).

18 Cal. 635 (People v. Sears) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Pratt
112 Cal. App. 3d 795 (California Court of Appeal, 1980)
People v. Bourland
247 Cal. App. 2d 76 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Dodd v. Cantwell
179 Cal. App. 2d 727 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
Korakakis v. Freeman
178 Cal. App. 2d 331 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
People v. Selz
291 P.2d 186 (California Court of Appeal, 1955)
State v. Barry
92 N.W. 809 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
People v. Williams
32 Cal. 280 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Waldie v. Doll
29 Cal. 555 (California Supreme Court, 1866)