Court Opinion

ID: 9738497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:54:44.928586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.509424
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
Appellant seeks a rehearing and the taking of further evidence to establish, as his attached declarations purportedly show, that when the jury waiver was taken in this case the door between the chambers and the courtroom was actually closed and neither the public nor the press was invited into the chambers.1
While it is questionable whether additional evidence may be taken on a criminal appeal (see People v. Benford, 53 Cal.2d 1, 7 [345 P.2d 928] ; People v. Merriam, 66 Cal.2d 390, 397 [58 Cal.Rptr. 1, 426 P.2d 161]) we need not decide the point at this time. We may assume, arguendo, that it may be done. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 23(b).) But to do so here would be futile because if state constitutional error were thereby proven, such error under the circumstances of this ease would be nonprejudicial. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, §13; People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818, 834-837 [299 P.2d 243]; People v. Bostick, 62 Cal.2d 820, 824-826 [44 Cal.Rptr. 649, 402 P.2d 529].)
The petition for rehearing and leave to take additional evidence is denied.
Shinn, J., concurred in the order denying rehearing.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 1, 1968. Peters, J.. and Tobriner, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.