Court Opinion

ID: 9607746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:01:37.441746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:39.838952
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I concur, but I do not agree with the majority that the word “trial” is ambiguous.
In finding an ambiguity, the majority misread the two cases on which they rely. People v. McKamy (1914) 168 Cal. 531, 535 [143 P. 752], makes no reference to sentencing; it indicates the trial ends with conviction or acquittal. People v. Arbee (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 351, 356 [192 Cal.Rptr. 13], merely declares that “sentencing constitutes an essential and material phase of the criminal proceeding” (italics added), not the trial.
I am convinced that what constitutes a trial has been common knowledge at least since William the Conqueror and the Normans introduced trial by battle into medieval England.
Without citation of any persuasive authority, the dissent curiously declares that the phrase, “pending trial,” might or might not include sentencing. It then goes beyond that equivocation to pronounce, ipse dixit, that the legislative intent is “unmistakable.”
I am reminded of Chief Justice Wright’s quotation attributed to a renowned English jurist: “If Parliament didn’t mean what it said, why didn’t it say so?” If the Legislature didn’t mean “trial,” why didn’t it say so?
“Trial” in this country has generally been defined in the manner of an Ohio court six decades ago: “In its strict definition, the word ‘trial’ in criminal procedure means the proceedings in open court after the pleadings are finished and the prosecution is otherwise ready, down to and including the rendition of the verdict . . . .” (Thomas v. Mills (1927) 117 Ohio St. 114 [157 N.E. 488, 489, 54 A.L.R. 1220].)
There should not be any mystery concerning the definition of “trial” at this late date in California. More than a century ago this court declared that *902every step “up to and including the verdict” constitutes the trial. (People v. Turner (1870) 39 Cal. 370, 371.) Again in People v. White (1907) 5 Cal.App. 329, 340 [90 P. 471], it was held that every step “from issue joined to verdict rendered” constitutes the trial.
People v. Gilbert (1943) 22 Cal.2d 522 [140 P.2d 9], was even more explicit: “A hearing for the determination of the degree of an offense and the punishment therefor is not a trial . . . .” (Id. at p. 528.) The foregoing rule was repeated in People v. Gilbert (1944) 25 Cal.2d 422, 428 [154 P.2d 657], and in People v. Thomas (1951) 37 Cal.2d 74, 76 [230 P.2d 351], Finally,People v. Stokes (1907) 5 Cal.App. 205,214 [89 P. 997], forthrightly held, “Pronouncing judgment, which is the formal declaration of sentence, is not the trial, nor any part thereof . . . .”
Since the dissent cites no controlling authority, and the foregoing cases support the majority conclusion, though not its rationale, I must concur in reversal of the judgment.