Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

and the subsequent progress of the trial. (People v. Chaves, 122 Cal. 134, 54 Pac. 596.)

Waiver of jury trial.—The legislature alone, and not the court, can determine what shall constitute a waiver of a jury trial. (Exline v. Smith, 5 Cal. 112.) The right to a jury trial is not waived by going to trial after it has been denied, and the denial of it may be reviewed upon an appeal from the judgment. (In re Robinson, 106 Cal. 493, 39 Pac. 862.)

A plea of guilty is a waiver of a jury trial. (People v. Lennox, 67 Cal. 113, 7 Pac. 260.) Also a failure to demand it in a civil case before the trial begins. (Polack v. Gurnee, 66 Cal. 266, 5 Pac. 229, 610.)

Refusal of, how reviewed. The denial of a jury trial may be reviewed upon an appeal from a judgment (In re Robinson, 106 Cal. 493, 39 Pac. 862), but cannot be reached by a writ of habeas corpus. (Ex parte Miller, 82 Cal. 454, 22 Pac. 1113.)

Refusal of a court to allow a jury trial cannot be reviewed by certiorari. (Wittman v. Police Court, 145 Cal. 474, 78 Pac. 1052.)

Sec. 8. Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county.

INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.-A crime committed before the adoption of the new constitution may, after such adoption, be prosecuted by information. (People v. Campbell, 59 Cal. 243.)

As to the distinction between an indictment, and a presentment, see In re Grosbois, 109 Cal. 445, 42 Pac. 444.

(In re Gros

Under this provision a presentment by the grand jury for a misdemeanor is unauthorized. bois, 109 Cal. 445, 42 Pac. 444.)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

This section does not prohibit a prosecution by indictment of any criminal offense, including a misdemeanor. (Ex parte McCartny, 53 Cal. 412.)

A defendant cannot be put upon trial under an information until after examination and commitment by a magistrate. (Ex parte Nicholas, 91 Cal. 640, 28 Pac. 47.)

The constitution has left the form of the indictment to the legislature. (People v. Kelly, 6 Cal. 210.) The provision of this section for proceeding in criminal cases by information is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States, as not being "due process of law." (Kalloch v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. 229.)

Sec. 9. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Indictments found, or information laid, for publication in newspapers shall be tried in the county where such newspapers have their publication office, or in the county where the party alleged to be libeled resided at the time of the alleged publication, unless the place of trial shall be changed for good cause.

LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.-This provision does not make all publications in a newspaper privileged. (Gilman v. McClatchy, 111 Cal. 606, 44 Pac. 241.)

The liberty of the press is not more under the protection of the constitution than the liberty of speech, and the publishers of a newspaper can defend an action for libel only upon precisely the same grounds upon which any other individual could defend an action for slander. (Edwards v. Publishing Soc., 99 Cal. 431, 34 Pac. 128.)

A court has power to punish as a contempt a publication charging a judge with "deliberate lying about the law,' etc., in a case before him. (Ex parte Barry, 85 Cal. 603, 25 Pac. 256.)

Under this section a court has no power to forbid the representation upon the theatrical stage of the facts of a criminal case, pending the trial of such case. (Dailey v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 94, 44 Pac. 458.)

It is proper for the court to inform the jury as to the rules of evidence, and the law applicable to the case, and to tell them that they should go contrary to the instructions of the court only when they have a deep and confident conviction that the court is wrong, and that they are right. (People v. Seeley, 139 Cal. 118.)

The last sentence of this section applies to the case of a person who causes a libel to be published in a newspaper, as well as to a publication by the publishers and proprietors alone. (In re Kowalsky, 73 Cal. 120, 14 Pac. 399.)

Sec. 10. The people shall have the right to freely assemble together to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the legislature for redress of grievances.

RIGHT TO FREELY ASSEMBLE.-This section does not prevent the legislature from forbidding unlawful assemblies. As to what are such assemblies, see People v. Most, 128 N. Y. 108, 27 N. E. 970; Rex v.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Birt, 5 Car. & P. 154; Regina v. Neale, 9 Car. & P. 431; Beatty v. Gillbanks, 9 Q. B. Div. 308.

Sec. 11. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.

UNIFORMITY OF LAWS.-This provision does not affect laws in force at the adoption of the constitution; and, therefore, while section 204 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to the impaneling of grand jurors, might have been void under this provision, a mere amendment to that section, making it applicable to the present judicial system, does not make it unconstitutional. (People v. Durrant,

116 Cal. 179, 48 Pac. 75.)

General principles.-The word "uniform" does not mean universal.'' (People v. Twelfth District Court, 17 Cal. 547; Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136, 44 Pac. 915, 45 Pac. 1057; In re Zhizhuzza, 147 Cal. 328, 81 Pac. 955.)

All that is necessary to constitute uniformity is that the law shall operate uniformly upon all persons in the same category, and upon rights and things in the same relation. (People v. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436, 18 Pac. 413; People v. Twelfth District Court, 17 Cal. 547; Ex parte Halsted, 89 Cal. 471, 26 Pac. 961; Wigmore v. Buell, 122 Cal. 144, 54 Pac. 600.)

A statute is uniform in its operation if it applies alike to all persons or objects within a class founded upon some natural, intrinsic, or constitutional distinction. (Vail v. San Diego Co., 126 Cal. 35, 58 Pac. 392; Solano Co. v. McCudden, 120 Cal. 648, 53 Pac. 213; Cody v. Murphey, 89 Cal. 522, 26 Pac. 1081; Kahn v. Sutro, 114 Cal. 316, 46 Pac. 87; Murphy v. Pacific Bank, 119 Cal. 334, 51 Pac. 317; Ruperich v. Baehr, 142 Cal. 190.)

same

The meaning of this provision is that the legislature shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the term shall not equally belong to all citizens. (Ex parte Smith & Keating, 38 Cal. 702; Miller v. Kister, 68 Cal. 142, 8 Pac. 813; People v. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436, 18 Pac. 413; Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 366.)

This provision has no application to municipal ordinances. (In re Zhizhuzza, 147 Cal. 328, 81 Pac. 955.) Special laws. It is only laws of a general nature that are required to have a uniform operation, and this section does not forbid special laws. (People v. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 43 Cal. 398; Brooks Hyde, 37 Cal. 366; Addison v. Saulnier, 19 Cal. 82; People v. Twelfth District Court, 17 Cal. 547.)

V.

Particular acts held not to be uniform.-In conformity with these principles, the following statutes have been held void as not uniform in their operation:

A provision of the County Government Act that, in counties of a certain designated population, county licenses collected in cities shall be paid into the treasuries of such cities for street improvements (San Luis Obispo Co. v. Graves, 84 Cal. 71, 23 Pac. 1032); an act authorizing a named street railway company to operate a street railway on designated streets (Omnibus R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 57 Cal. 160); a provision of the Insolvency Act, giving a right of appeal in cases of contempt-a right not given in other cases of contempt (Ex parte Clancy, 90 Cal. 553, 37 Pac. 411); a law requiring cities of two designated classes to make an effort to agree with the owners of land sought to be condemned, before instituting condemnation proceedings (Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238, 27 Pac. 604); a provision of the County Government Act of 1883, that the boards of supervisors of counties of certain designated classes may allow county officers a deputy whenever in the opinion of such board the salaries of such officers are insufficient (Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601, 28 Pac. 834, 29 Pac. 1092); the provision of the Australian ballot law for the voting of straight tickets by stamping the ticket opposite the name of the political party to be printed at the head of the ticket (Eaton v. Brown, 96 Cal. 371, 31 Pac. 250); an act providing that in cities having boards of education, the city treasurers are to have the custody of the state and county school money appropriated to the city (Bruch v. Colombet, 104 Cal. 347, 38 Pac. 45); a provision in the County Government Act that, in counties of one particular class only, witnesses

30

« PreviousContinue »