People v. Boggs
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Seventh Judicial District. ■The defendant was indicted under the name of James B. Boggs for the crime of murder. The verdict of the jury who tried the case was as follows: “ We, the jury, do find the defendant J. M. Boggs guilty of manslaughter. D. D. Hemmenway, Foreman.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Seventh Judicial District. ■The defendant was indicted under the name of James B. Boggs for the crime of murder. The verdict of the jury who tried the case was as follows: “ We, the jury, do find the defendant J. M. Boggs guilty of manslaughter. D. D. Hemmenway, Foreman.” Defendant moved for a new trial on the ground of the error in the name of the defendant in the verdict, and also on the ground of misconduct in the jury, and the officer having the jury in charge after the case was submitted. In support of the motion, defendant presented several affidavits, from which it…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
We do not see how the verdict of the jury could have been affected by so slight a mistake as that which occurred in reading the testimony of the witness Cunningham. The door from which McLaughlin issued is stated to have been nearly northeast from where Boggs stood, and the witness stated that Boggs’ face was nearly south. It was read to the jury that Boggs’ face was nearly north. The jury stated that they differed as to the testimony of the two witnesses, Hickle and Cunningham. The fair meaning of this is, that they differed as to the testimony of these witnesses upon points or portions of…
2Cited by15 opinions
- People v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- People v. ChadwickUtah Supreme Court · 1891
- Segelbaum v. SegelbaumSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- People v. FerrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- People v. SymondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.