People v. Hickman
California Supreme Court
Appeal fíom a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County and from an order denying a new trial. Wheaton A. Gray, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Fleet, J.
Defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals from the judgment and an order denying him a new trial. He assigns numerous errors.
1. The exceptions .taken in the impanelment of the jury are without merit. The course pursued by the trial judge as to the time and manner of requiring peremptory challenges to be exercised has been the established rule in criminal cases in this state for upwards of twenty-five years. (People v. Scoggins, 37 Cal. 679.)
The challenge for cause interposed by the prosecution to the juror Fulkreth was properly allowed. The challenge was sufficiently specific, and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Howland v. Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- People v. ScogginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- People v. BushCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- People v. PartonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- People v. BentleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- People v. SweeneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- People v. FowlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- People v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- People v. WilkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.