People v. Fredericks

Citations

• 106 Cal. 554
• 39 P. 944
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 640

Syllabus

<p>Criminal Law—Homicide—Pleading—Jurisdiction of Offense.—Where the information alleges that the offense of murder was committed in the city and county of San Francisco, the fact that it does not allege that it was not committed within excepted limits over which the superior court has no jurisdiction, and over which the United States courts have exclu. sive jurisdiction, does not render the information defective, but if the offense was committed within the excepted territory, it is matter of defense to he specially pleaded by the defendant.</p> <p>Id.—Motion for Change of Venue—Popular Prejudice—Sufficiency of Showing—Waiver of Motion.—Where a motion for a change of venue is made upon affidavits showing a strong prima facie case in support of the motion, on the ground of bias and prejudice of the people against the defendant, without any counter-showing as to the condition of the public mind in the locality where the defendant was to be tried, the defendant is entitled to a change of venue, but where, after denial of the motion, another opportunity is afforded by the court to the defendant to urge the motion, and the hearing thereof is set for a particular date, at which time counsel for defendant failed to call up the motion, and no action was taken upon it by the trial court, the failure to urge the motion under these circumstances is an abandonment and waiver of it.</p> <p>Id.—Challenge of Juror for Actual Blas—Review upon Appeal.—The supreme court can only review an order denying the challenge of a juror upon the ground of actual bias, when the evidence upon the examination of the juror is so opposed to the decision of the trial court that the question becomes one of law, and where the evidence is conflicting, or shows a state of facts which might have justified the trial court in excluding the juror, the decision by the trial court as to the question of fact is conclusive.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence—Pursuit and Capture of Defendant.—Evidence is admissible as to the p