As a general matter, it is doubtful whether Code of Civil Procedure section 630, subdivision (f), is applicable at all in true criminal proceedings; it does not expressly refer to criminal actions and no provision in the Penal Code purports to allow for a directed verdict under that provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 630 Rather, it would seem that the Penal Code occupies the field. (See Gonzales v. Superior Court (1935) 3 Cal.2d 257, 263.) Thus, Gonzales determined that the "curative provisions" of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 did not apply to criminal cases, observing that "the procedure in criminal actions is provided for by part II of the Penal Code, which is entitled `Criminal Procedure.'
( Baar v. Smith, supra, 201 Cal. at p. 103 ["The findings specifically show that [defendant] is not in the present possession of said stock and was not at the time said judgment was rendered; therefore, it would be impossible for her to comply with any order requiring her to deliver such stock to plaintiff; hence, section 943 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be inapplicable. [Citations.]"]; see also McCallion v. Hibernia etc. Soc. (1893) 98 Cal. 442, 445 [33 P. 329] [no stay bond required where money was in court's possession]; Boldemann Chocolate Co. v. Price (1935) 3 Cal.2d 257, 258-259 [ 43 P.2d 810] [no undertaking required where insurance policy was in court clerk's custody].) There is no merit to Ms. Ringgold's automatic stay contention.