Case ID: cal_69/html/0540-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McKee, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20175.
    In Bank
    May 21, 1886.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ANGEL CAMILO, Appellant.
    Criminal Law—Trial—Want of Speedy Prosecution—Dismissal.— The failure to bring a person charged with crime to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information will not warrant a dismissal of the prosecution, if the delay was caused by the illness of the trial judge, or his engagements in the trial of other causes.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
    The defendant was prosecuted by information for the crime of grand larceny, and convicted. The information was filed on the 1st of October, 1885, and on the following day the defendant was arraigned. On the 5th of December, 1885, the defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution, for the reason that he had not been brought to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information, and that the trial had not been at any time • continued or postponed on his application or with his consent; but that the same had been postponed against his protest. The motion was denied for the reason that the delay in bringing the defendant to trial was caused by the illness of the judge during a portion of the sixty days, and by his engagements in the trial of other cases during the remainder of that period. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      J. M. Lucas, for Petitioner.
    
      Attorney-General Marshall, for Respondent.
   McKee, J.

It is the policy of the law, that persons charged with crime shall have a speedy as well as a fair and impartial trial. To that end it is provided by section 1382, Penal Code:—

“ The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dismissed in the following cases:—
“ 2. If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial within sixty days after the filing of the indictment or filing of the information.”

The defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution against him on that ground, and subsequently on the same ground moved in arrest of judgment.- Both motions were denied, and we think there was no error in the rulings of the court, because the record shows that sufficient cause was shown for not bringing the action against the defendant to trial within sixty days after the filing of the information.

As this is the only assignment of error presented by the record, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Myrick, J., Morrison, C. J., Ross, J., Thornton, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.