Case ID: cal_61/html/0435-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ross, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 10,769.
    In Bank.]
    September 28, 1882.
    THE PEOPLE v. JOHN O’NEIL.
    Peremptory Challenges—Charge op Second Offense—Penalty.—The defendant was charged with the crime of robbery and with having been previously convicted of the crime of petty larceny, and his plea confessed the previous conviction of petty larceny, but was not guilty to the charge of robbery.
    
      Held: Under Secs. 0G7 to 671 of the Penal Code, the only punishment that could be imposed on the defendant upon his conviction was imprisonment for life; and he was therefore entitled to twenty peremptory challenges.
    
      Appeal from a judgment of conviction and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco. Ferral J.
    
      Gallagher & Walker, for Appellant.
    
      A. L. Hart, Attorney-General, for Respondent.
   Ross, J.:

The defendant was charged with the crime of robbery, and with having been previously convicted of the crime of petit . larceny. His plea confessed the previous conviction of petit •larceny, but was “not guilty” to the charge of robbery. At the trial he exercised ten peremptory challenges, and after-wards interposed a like challenge to another juror, which the Court below refused to allow. This was an error demanding the reversal of the judgment.

The only punishment that could be imposed on the defendant upon his conviction was imprisonment for life (Penal Code, §§ 667-671); and in such cases the defendant is entitled to twenty peremptory challenges. (Penal Code, See. 1070; People v. Harris, supra.)

-Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Morrison, C. J., and McKinstry, Myrick, Sharpstein, McKee, and Thornton, JJ., concurred.