People v. Scott
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County and from an order refusing a new trial. Emmett Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape in having carnal intercourse with a female under the age of consent, and he has appealed from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.
The claim that he should have been allowed twenty peremptory challenges has been determined several times by the supreme court adversely to his contention. It is sufficient to refer to People v. Sullivan, 132 Cal. 94, [64 Pac. 90], wherein, alluding to the earlier construction of the statute allowing only ten such challenges, it is said: ‘ ‘ The construction thus given to the section was…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- People v. O'BryanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- People v. CastroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- People v. WilkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- People v. KollerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- People v. Rincon-PinedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- People v. PeeteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Johns v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1951
- People v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- People v. LucasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.