TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Yant

THE PEOPLE v. MILFRED R. YANT

People v. Yant, 78 P.2d 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 26, 1938
Docket
No. Crim. No. 3096
Citations
78 P.2d 104226 Cal. App. 2d 1241938 Cal. App. LEXIS 1004

Opinion of the Court

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

THE COURT.

This proceeding is in the nature of an application for admission to bail pending a determination of petitioner’s appeal. It was commenced by a petition, general and formal in its terms, accompanied by an affidavit and a transcript of proceedings had at the time a similar application was made to the trial court following appellant’s conviction. Points and authorities were submitted in support of the petition and the matter was orally argued and submitted. The affidavit and testimony contain statements concerning the effect likely to be wrought upon petitioner’s health by his imprisonment. The only resultant statements *125 in the affidavit and testimony are that since his incarceration appellant’s health has been seriously impaired and that it is believed that his present condition and the injury to his health is such that it will be dangerously affected by further imprisonment.

The showing here made is utterly insufficient to support the application for admission to bail. Such an application, made after appeal, should be allowed “only in cases where circumstances of an extraordinary character have intervened”. (Ex parte Marks, 49 Cal. 680 .) The only “circumstances” intervening since conviction, taking the entire case made by appellant, are disclosed by some of the statements contained in the affidavit concerning the state of his health, but that showing is insufficient. In Ex parte Turner, 112 Cal. 627 [ 45 Pac. 571 ], it was said: “There is nothing in the case showing the intervention of any such extraordinary circumstance as would justify holding that the application was improperly denied by the judge of the trial court. The evidence does not show that there is such imminence of dangerous results to the life or health of the defendant as to obviously require his removal from the county jail at this time.” For a review of the authorities upon the question of the effect of confinement upon health as requiring admission to bail pending appeal, see People v. Cornell, 28 Cal. App. 654 [ 153 Pac. 726 ].

In the instant case, should more serious consequences of his confinement hereafter manifest themselves, such as to render it proper that bail should be allowed, there is nothing to preclude another application for the purpose.

The application for admission to bail is denied without prejudice.

How later courts describe this case

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

1945: 11956: 11966: 11974: 119452026peak 1945 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Brumback299 P.2d 217 (Cal. 1956)
  2. People v. Hardeman244 Cal. App. 2d 1 (1966)
  3. People v. Davis155 P.2d 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)
  4. People v. Turner39 Cal. App. 3d 682 (1974) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. People v. Turner39 Cal. App. 3d 682 (1974) · Dissent
  2. People v. Hardeman244 Cal. App. 2d 1 (1966)
  3. In re Brumback299 P.2d 217 (Cal. 1956)
  4. People v. Davis155 P.2d 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Ex parte Turner, 45 P. 571 (Cal. 1896) 21
People v. Cornell, 153 P. 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 1915) 11
Ex Parte Marks, 49 Cal. 680 (1875) 8

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