People v. Dick
Citations
- 37 Cal. 277
Syllabus
<p>Challenge to Jurors in Criminal Cases.—In a criminal case a challenge to a juror for implied bias must, in addition to that fact, state some one or more of tho specific grounds therefor enumerated in section three hundred and forty seven of the Criminal Practice Act, and a challenge for actual bias must allege that the juror is biased against the party challenging. A challenge which merely states that “the juror is challenged for cause,” “for implied bias,” or “for actual bias,” is no challenge.</p> <p>Specifications in Motion in Arrest of Judgment.—The defects in the indictment authorizing a motion in arrest of judgment under section four hundred and forty-two of the Criminal Practice Act, must be specifically stated and pointed out as the basis of such motion in the Court below, to entitle the action of the Court thereon to review on appeal.</p> <p>Idem—What Defects in Indictment not held Fatal.—Mere formal defects in the indictment, by which no substantial right of the defendant could be affected, will not justify an arrest of the judgment. Thus, where in an indictment foi murder, the initial letters only of the Christian names of the deceased were prefixed to his surname, and it did not appear but that he was generally known, recognized, and identified by the name as contained in the indictment, this Court will not reverse the order of the Court below refusing to arrest the judgment.</p> <p>Tests of the Sufficiency of Criminal Pleadings.—In this State,\ Courts are required to observe and enforce the tests prescribed by sections two hundred\ and forty-three and two hundred and forty-six of the Criminal Practice Act, as to the sufficiency of criminal pleadings as paramount to the ancient rules of the-common law.</p> <p>. Instructions—Proof of Corpus Delicti.—On a trial for murder the Court gave an instruction to the jury which, by necessary implication, assumed that the death of the deceased was the result of wounds inflicted upon his body by some other person,
Judges: Sprague
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. OwensCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-02-17· cited 35×
- People v. SansomeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-05-11· cited 28×
- People v. HoptUtah Supreme Court· 1886-01-15· cited 16×
- Tennessee Central Railroad v. BrownTennessee Supreme Court· 1911-12-15· cited 15×
- State v. St. ClairIdaho Supreme Court· 1898-05-10· cited 11×
- Nino v. Paul T.California Court of Appeal· 1971-03-09· cited 9×
- People v. DyerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1939-01-30· cited 7×
- Hall v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1903-04-15· cited 5×
- Pueblo v. Rivera OquendoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1934-01-31· cited 3×
- People v. RosenbloomCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1931-07-23
- People v. Rivera OquendoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1934-01-31
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.