Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Cal. 345

People v. Giesea

California Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1883

California Supreme Court · decided 1883-04-27

<p>Cbiminal Pbactice—Dismissal of Peosecution—Section 1382 of the Penal Code Constbued.—The indictment in this case was demurred to and the demurrer sustained. This ruling was reversed on appeal. The trial court then fixed a day for the trial, against defendant’s objections, more than sixty days after the remittitur was filed. The defendant demanded his discharge under-section 1382 of the Penal Code, arid the court so ordered and dismissed the action. Held, that this section has no application to such a case, and that the court erred in its ruling.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““We are of opinion that the case of the defendant does not come within the provisions of the section above referred to. That section has no application where the prisoner has demurred to the indictment, the demurrer sustained, the effect of which ruling had to be gotten rid of by an appeal.” (Page 346.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Campbell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-04-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 1973

13 state decisions

401883189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This is an appeal from an order dismissing the cause and discharging the defendant.

¶2The indictment in this cause was demurred to and the demurrer was sustained. On appeal by the people to this court, this ruling ivas reversed with directions to overrule the demurrer. On the return of the remittitur, the court fixed a day for the trial of the defendant, and against his objection, more than sixty days after the remittitur was filed. Thereupon the defendant, under section 1382 of the Penal Code, claimed his discharge, and that the case should be dismissed. The court below so ruled and made an order discharging the defendant and dismissing the cause. Thereupon, this appeal was prosecuted by the people.

¶3We are of opinion that the case of the defendant does not come within the provisions of the section above referred to. That section has no application where the prisoner has demurred to the indictment, the demurrer sustained, the effect of which ruling had to be gotten rid of by an appeal.

¶4The court in our judgment erred in its ruling, and the order is reversed and cause remanded, that proceedings may 'be had in the court below according to law.

¶5Morrison, C. J., and Sharpstein, J., did not participate.

/63/cal/345 · .json · Public domain