Opinion
Appeal by the defendant Sepulveda from a judgment of conviction, and from an order denying a new trial in the County Court of Santa Clara County.
The verdict appearing in the transcript is as stated in the opinion. A certified copy of the verdict of the jury " as the same appears now of record and on file in said (County) Court," was filed by the respondents in the Supreme Court February 21, 1881, and is as follows: " Verdict: We, the jury, find the defendances guilty as charged in the inditsement ." This was adopted as the verdict by Department One in its decision filed June 18, 1881, and held to be sufficient. By order of this Court a certified copy of the minutes of the lower Court was subsequently filed, in which the verdict appears as follows: " San Jose, December 2, 1879. We, the jury, find the defendants guilty as charged in the indictment."
COUNSEL
The paper purporting to be a certified copy of the verdict of the jury is no part of the record, and can not be considered.
S. L. Terry, for Appellant. (Petition for rehearing.)
A. L. Hart, Attorney General, for Respondent.
OPINION
In Bank.
The Court:
The defendants were indicted in the late County Court of Santa Clara County for the crime of grand larceny, and the case having been submitted to a jury, the following verdict was rendered therein: " We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment." The foregoing verdict having been entered of record and read to the jury, was by them severally declared to be his verdict, whereupon " it was ordered by the Court that the defendant appear for sentence at ten o'clock a. m., on Saturday, November 6, 1879." Judgment was entered upon the foregoing verdict against both of the defendants, and the defendant Sepulveda having moved the Court for a new trial, which motion was denied, appeals from the judgment and order.
There were two defendants on trial, and a verdict finding the defendant guilty, without specifying which of the two defendants, was void for uncertainty. (Richards v. Sperry , 7 Wis. 219; 3 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, 1378.)
Judgment and order reversed.