Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

69 Cal. 541

In re Gannon

California Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1886

California Supreme Court · decided 1886-05-22

<p>Grand Jury—Collateral Attack on Validity— Contempt. — The validity of a grand jury cannot be drawn in question in a proceeding of contempt to punish a person for refusing to testify before it.</p> <p>Id. — Jurisdiction. —A grand jury is part of the court by which it is convened, and the court has jurisdiction to adjudge a witness who defies the authority of the grand jury, by refusing to testify before it, guilty of contempt, and to punish him therefor.</p> <p>Id.—Term op Service.—A grand jury legally constituted may continue to act until dissolved by operation of law or an order of court.</p> <p>Id. -—Grand Jury op 1885. —The grand jury organized on the 14th of July, 1885, in the city and county of San Francisco, was not dissolved by operation of law during or at the expiration of that year, and was a valid body on the 26th of March, 1886, notwithstanding the names of grand jurors were selected and returned in January, 1886, for that year, from which a new grand jury might have been drawn. Section 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes no specific time for the drawing of the grand jury, or for its official existence. These matters have been left to the discretion of the court.</p> <p>Id.—Terms of Court.—The constitution of 1879 abolished the-system of terms and final adjournments under which judicial business was transacted by the former courts. The word “sessions,” as used in sections 73 and 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure, means the time during which the court is in fact held at the place appointed and engaged in business; and the word “recesses” means the times in which the court is not actually engaged in business. There is no division of time into certain periods of the year known as terms of court at which a court may sit to hear and determine causes.</p>

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Recess” · Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Recess”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-05-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 1992 · most notably 4 Cal. 4th 335 - People v. Karaman (1992), 54 Cal. 2d 548 - Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court (1960)

2 federal appellate · 35 state decisions — followed in 10 states

100188618901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

Myrick, J., dissenting.

¶1By the statutes of this state, it is required that in January of each year there shall he selected a list of persons to serve as grand jurors during the ensuing year, or until a new list shall be provided. (Civ. Code Proc., sec. 204.) The persons whose names are so selected shall serve for one year and until other persons are selected. (Civ. Code Proc., sec. 210.) In the city and county of San Francisco there shall be two grand juries drawn and impaneled in each year. (Civ. Code Proc., sec. 241.)

¶2My construction of. these provisions is, that the list of names is to be selected in January of each year, and if a grand jury be drawn and impaneled during the year, its functions as such body cease at least when the list in the succeeding January shall be selected. The court may dismiss the grand jury at any time, but may not, either by non-action or by order, continue it in existence beyond the selection of the succeeding list. The language of the statute is, that the persons selected “ shall serve for one year,” etc.; and “to serve as grand jurors during the ensuing year.” I do not think that the word “serve ” has the signification that they are liable to be drawn during the year and serve afterwards, but rather, if they serve at all, it shall be within the year.

¶3A list was selected in January, 1885; from that list a grand jury was drawn and impaneled in July, 1885; a new list was selected in January, 1886; but the body drawn in July, 1885, continued to sit as such, and was in session in March, 1886, when the petitioner was called before it, no jury being drawn from the list of 1886.

¶4It seems to be an object of the statute that grand juries shall come from the body of the people at frequent intervals. If the body impaneled in July, 1885, could be retained or sit beyond the succeeding selection, I know of no limit of time for its retention; for if it may be retained one month it may ten years, even though in the mean time ten lists shall have been selected.

¶5I dissent from the judgment.

/69/cal/541 · .json · Public domain