People v. Tock Chew

THE PEOPLE v. TOCK CHEW

People v. Chew, 6 Cal. 636 (1856)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: July 1, 1856
Judges: Terry
Citations: 6 Cal. 636

Cited by 4 1 descriptions by later courts

Syllabus

The establishment and enforcement of rules, limiting the argument of counsel to a certain time, are matters resting in the sound discretion of the Court, and, unless it appear that injustice has thereby been done, form no ground of appeal.

Summary

Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Placer County. The defendant was indicted and convicted of grand larceny. On the trial, and before argument, the Court announced that it would limit the arguments of the counsel for the prosecution, in his opening and closing, to three-quarters of an hour, and that for the defence to half an hour—which rule was enforced, under the exception of defendant, who appeals, assigning this as error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Terry

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Terry.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

Upon the trial of this cause, and before the argument, the Court announced that the counsel for the people should be limited to three-quarters of an hour, in his opening and concluding arguments, and the counsel for the defendant to a half hour.

The enforcement of this rule is the only error assigned. The establishing and enforcement of such rules are matters resting in the sound discretion of the Court, and are often necessary, to prevent the time of the Court from being wasted in useless and unprofitable discussion.

It does not appear that the issues raised in this case were numerous or complicated, or that they could not have been fully presented in the time allowed; nor is there any allegation that injustice has been done to the defendant by the verdict, or that the longest argument would have been likely to change the result.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(affirming defendant's grand larceny conviction and upholding time limits of thirty minutes or less because issues did not appear numerous or complicated and the issues involved in the case could have been fully presented in allocated time)

State v. Tilghman, 895 A.2d 1207 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006)

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Hoyt47 Conn. 518 (1880)
People v. Williams32 Cal. 280 (1867) · Concurrence
Saint Croix Lumber Co. v. Pennington2 Dakota 467 (1881)
State v. Tilghman895 A.2d 1207 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006)

Most recent

State v. Tilghman895 A.2d 1207 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006)
Saint Croix Lumber Co. v. Pennington2 Dakota 467 (1881)
State v. Hoyt47 Conn. 518 (1880)
People v. Williams32 Cal. 280 (1867) · Concurrence

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list