In the words of this court more than a century ago: "[W]hen an exception to a particular ruling has been allowed this court has no authority to strike out any evidence or other matters stated in connection with such ruling upon the ground that such evidence was not given, or that such matters are untruly or incorrectly stated. . . . If the judge has put in incorrect statements of evidence, or other matters bearing upon his rulings, or has omitted evidence or other matters claimed to be material, the evil is not remediable here."(Estate of Dolbeer (1905) 147 Cal. 359, 361 [ 81 P. 1098], italics added; see also Marks v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 176, 196 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 674, 38 P.3d 512]; Burns v. Brown (1946) 27 Cal.2d 631, 636 [ 166 P.2d 1].) I also disagree with the majority that any instructional error was harmless.
Even before the 1933 amendment it was held "that when an exception to a particular ruling has been allowed this court has no authority to strike out any evidence or other matters stated in connection with such ruling upon the ground that such evidence was not given, or that such matters are untruly or incorrectly stated; from which it follows that we are equally without authority to add to the statement of the ruling and exception contained in the settled bill any evidence or other matters which may be alleged to have been improperly omitted therefrom. . . . If the judge has put in incorrect statements of evidence, or other matters bearing upon his rulings, or has omitted evidence or other matters claimed to be material, the evil is not remediable here." ( Estate of Dolbeer, 147 Cal. 359, 361 [ 81 P. 1098]; Vance v. Superior Court, 87 Cal. 390 [25 P. 500]; Hyde v. Boyle, 86 Cal. 352 [24 P. 1059]; Landers v. Landers, 82 Cal. 480, 482 [23 P. 126]; In re Gates, 90 Cal. 257, 259 [27 P. 195].) It follows that section 652 cannot be invoked to harmonize the views of the trial judge and a party with respect to the correctness of the proposed statement.
( Bedan v. Turney, 99 Cal. 649 [34 P. 442].) [3] In the event the trial judge in settling the bill refuses to allow a bill of exceptions in accordance with the facts, the aggrieved party is afforded full and adequate remedy by section 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure to obtain a correct bill by means of application to the reviewing court. ( Estate of Dolbeer, 147 Cal. 359 [ 81 P. 1098]; Rhode v. Wattles, 114 Cal.App. 144 [ 299 P. 574].) It is held, therefore, that when a bill has been duly certified and engrossed the reviewing court will not entertain proceedings to amend the same.
This procedure is well settled in the practice. ( Estate of Dolbeer, 147 Cal. 359 [ 81 P. 1098].) If appellant felt aggrieved by the action of the trial court in relation to the bill of exceptions, he had the right to make application to the Supreme Court, or to the Court of Appeal, in which his case was pending, provided that he made such application in the proper manner and with reasonable promptitude.
[2] The time within which an application under section 652 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be made is not fixed by either statute or rule of court. In the Estate of Dolbeer, 147 Cal. 359, 362 [ 81 P. 1098], the supreme court said that such applications should be made with reasonable promptitude, but held that under the circumstances of that case two months' delay was excusable. [3] Here it is so apparent that the action of the trial judge in striking out the entire substance of the bill was through inadvertence that the petitioner was justified in waiting thirty days for the return of the trial judge to the end that the mistake might be called to the court's attention and the order vacated and set aside, as was done in Donnelly v. Tregaskis, 7 Cal.App. 317 [ 94 P. 383].
A charge of the commission of such a crime on a particular date will support a conviction of the crime on any date within the applicable statutory period of limitation next preceding the filing of the information. Rem. Rev. Stat., §§ 2060, 2065 [P.C. §§ 9273, 9281]; State v. Osborne, 39 Wn. 548, 81 P. 1098; State v. Oberg, 187 Wn. 429, 60 P.2d 66; State v. Odell, 188 Wn. 310, 62 P.2d 711. The appellant was fully advised of "the nature and cause of the accusation against him," and his constitutional rights were not invaded.
At the outset, we address Plaintiffs’ request for this court “to strike those portions of [Edison’s] evidence contended to be inadmissible, for the reasons set forth therein.” If the trial court “‘has put in incorrect statements of evidence, or other matters bearing upon [the court’s] rulings, or has omitted evidence or other matters claimed to be material, the evil is not remediable here.’” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 258, citing In re Dolbeer’s Estate (1905) 147 Cal. 359, 361.) “[T]his court has no authority to strike out any evidence....” (Huggins, at p. 258.)