Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

83 Cal. 419

People v. Beaver

California Supreme Court

Decided March 10, 1890

California Supreme Court · decided 1890-03-10

<p>Criminal Law—Judgment Roll — Unauthenticated Instructions — Review on Appeal. — An alleged charge to the jury in a criminal case which is Dot incorporated in any bill of exceptions, nor authenticated in any manner, forms no part of the judgment roll, and cannot be considered by the appellate court.</p> <p>Id. — Objections to Argument of District Attorney—Action of Court. — Improper statements of the district attorney and his associates, made in their argument, cannot be considered on appeal, if no action of the court below with reference to allowing or forbidding such statements was demanded or requested.</p>

Relies on Morrow v. Superior Court · People v. Rogers

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1932

7 state decisions

2018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Foote, C.

¶1The defendant was charged with murder, and convicted of manslaughter. From the judgment rendered in the premises, and an order denying a new trial, this appeal is taken.

¶2Objection is made to certain portions of the charge of the court, alleged to have been given of its own motion, at folios 13, 14, 17, and 29 of the transcript.

¶3There is nothing in the record to show that such a charge was either given or refused by the court. It is not shown by any bill of exceptions that any such action was taken by the court.

¶4The alleged charge is not authenticated in any manner by the judge, is no part of the judgment roll, and is not to be considered by the appellate court.. (People v. Rogers, 81 Cal. 209, 210, and cases cited.)

¶5As to the question raised, that the defendant did not *420have a fair trial, by reason of the argument made by the district attorney and his associates, it may be said that even if such comments as they made, brought out as they were by the argument of defendant's counsel, were improper, which we do not decide, the defendant cannot be heard here to assign error, for the reason that “the exceptions or objections to statements of counsel for the people in argument, and in the presence of the jury, cannot be considered. No action of the court with reference to allowing or forbidding such statements was demanded or requested/' (People v. Ah Fook, 64 Cal. 383.)

¶6No prejudicial error appearing, we advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

¶7Belcher, C. C., and Haynb, C., concurred.

The Court.

¶8For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

/83/cal/419 · .json · Public domain