People v. Varnum

California Supreme Court

People v. Varnum

53 Cal. 630, 1879 Cal. LEXIS 70

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1879

DocketNo. 10,377

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 53 Cal. 630 (People v. Varnum) 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. Varnum, 53 Cal. 630, 1879 Cal. LEXIS 70 (Cal. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court :

The appeal from the order denying the new trial having been taken more than sixty days after the order was made, must be dismissed. (Penal Code, sec. 1239.)

The defendant, in addition to the plea of not guilty, pleaded a former acquittal. On the trial he introduced in evidence an indictment found against him for the same offense, and an order made by the District Court setting aside the indictment and sub[631]*631mitting the case to another grand jury. The prosecution introduced in evidence a notice and motion to set aside the indictment, on the ground that the grand jury had not been legally constituted, and it was admitted that the defendant was in custody when the first indictment was found. This evidence was insufficient to maintain the plea of former acquittal, and the Court did not err in instructing the jury to that effect.

The instructions which the Court refused to give, at the request of the defendant, were fully covered by the charge of the Court, so far as they correctly stated the law applicable to the case.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court :

The appeal from the order denying the new trial having been taken more than sixty days after the order was made, must be dismissed. (Penal Code, sec. 1239.)

The defendant, in addition to the plea of not guilty, pleaded a former acquittal. On the trial he introduced in evidence an indictment found against him for the same offense, and an order made by the District Court setting aside the indictment and sub[631]*631mitting the case to another grand jury. The prosecution introduced in evidence a notice and motion to set aside the indictment, on the ground that the grand jury had not been legally constituted, and it was admitted that the defendant was in custody when the first indictment was found. This evidence was insufficient to maintain the plea of former acquittal, and the Court did not err in instructing the jury to that effect.

The instructions which the Court refused to give, at the request of the defendant, were fully covered by the charge of the Court, so far as they correctly stated the law applicable to the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Cal. 630, 1879 Cal. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-varnum-cal-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack