People v. Ross
THE PEOPLE v. FRED ROSS
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Myrick, J.
The information accused the defendant of the crime of grand larceny, and on being arraigned the defendant pleaded “not guilty,” and “once in jeopardy.” At the trial evidence was given for the prosecution and for the defense; but none of the evidence relates to the plea of once in jeopardy. After the district attorney had begun his opening argument to the jury, and was about to close, defendant’s attorneys asked that they be allowed to reopen their case for the purpose of introducing testimony on the plea of once in jeopardy, and the request was denied. Ro error appears, it was a matter of discretion.
The evidence regarding the cigarettes was competent, for the reason that it tended to connect the defendant with the taking of the property named in the information • for this reason, doubtless, the court admitted it, notwithstanding the obscure manner in which the district attorney stated its object. "
There is no error in the record.
Judgment affirmed.
Thornton, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.