State v. Williams
Idaho Supreme Court
WEIT of error to District Court, Nez Perces County. The district attorney has the right to accept the services of ■assistant counsel, on the trial of a criminal action. (People v. Biles, 2 Idaho, 103, 6 Pac. 120; People v. Turcott, 65 Cal. 126, 3 Pae. 461; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161, 37 Pac. 1007.) And the district court has no power under section 7855 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho, to order the district attorney to close the argument.
Read the full summary
WEIT of error to District Court, Nez Perces County. The district attorney has the right to accept the services of ■assistant counsel, on the trial of a criminal action. (People v. Biles, 2 Idaho, 103, 6 Pac. 120; People v. Turcott, 65 Cal. 126, 3 Pae. 461; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161, 37 Pac. 1007.) And the district court has no power under section 7855 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho, to order the district attorney to close the argument. (State v. Hurst, ante, p. 345, 39 Pac. 554.) The entire matter in controversy on this writ arises from a disputed construction of subdivision 5, section…
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, C. J.
(After Stating the Facts.) — Subdivision 5. of section 7855 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho, is as follows: “When the evidence is concluded, unless the case is submitted to the jury on either side or on both sides without argument* the district attorney or other counsel for the people, must open* and the district attorney may conclude the argument.” There is no indication, either in this subdivision or in any other part, of this section, that it was the intention of the legislature to compel the district attorney to close the argument of the ease in person, and therefore there can be no…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. BilesIdaho Supreme Court · 1885
- State v. O'DonaldIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. SteersIdaho Supreme Court · 1906