TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Morasco

People v. Morasco, 38 P. 423 (Cal. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 3, 1894
Docket
No. 21,165
Citations
38 P. 4234 Cal. Unrep. 889
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Homicide—Appeal.—An Appeal from a Judgment in a capital case will not be affirmed merely because no counsel has appeared to support the appeal by brief or oral argument.
Summary
APPEAL from Superior Court, Solano County; A. J. Buckles, Judge. Rico Morasco was convicted of murder, and appeals.

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.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant in this ease was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. His appeal is from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. We are furnished with an affidavit of the county clerk of the county in which the case was tried, which shows that a copy of the record was served on “the attorney of record” of the defendant on the twentieth day of August, 1894, and we are asked upon this affidavit to affirm the judgment and order appealed from, upon the ground that no brief has been filed in behalf of the defendant, and no counsel has appeared to suggest any error in the proceedings. The affidavit, however, is insufficient. The gentleman upon whom the record was served is not the attorney who acted as counsel for the defendant at the time of his arraignment and plea or during the trial, and his name is not signed to the notice of appeal. And, besides, we should not feel justified, in a capital case, in affirming the judgment without an examination of the record, merely because no counsel has appeared in support of the appeal by brief or oral argument. In view of the gravity of the case, we have directed further notice to be given to the attorneys who signed the notice of appeal, and, they having failed to respond, we have examined the record, in which we discover no error. The judgment and order of the superior court are therefore affirmed and the cause remanded, with directions to the superior court to take the proceedings necessary for the execution of its judgment.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1913: 21915: 11917: 11922: 11925: 11929: 11932: 11939: 11977: 12025: 119132026peak 1913 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. US Dominion, US v. Newsmax Media, Inc.No. N21C-08-063 EMD (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2025)
  2. Enright v. Groves560 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977)
  3. Ott v. Murphy141 N.W. 463 (Iowa 1913)
  4. Meeker v. Post Printing & Publishing Co.135 P. 457 (Colo. 1913)
  5. Schlessman v. Brainard92 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1939)
  6. Bearman v. People16 P.2d 425 (Colo. 1932)

Most recent

  1. US Dominion, US v. Newsmax Media, Inc.No. N21C-08-063 EMD (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2025)
  2. Enright v. Groves560 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977)
  3. Schlessman v. Brainard92 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1939)
  4. Bearman v. People16 P.2d 425 (Colo. 1932)
  5. Ballinger v. Democrat Co.223 N.W. 375 (Iowa 1929)
  6. People v. Francis1 V.I. 66 (D.V.I. 1925)

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.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list