Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Rice

83 Cal.App. 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Rice

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Phyle

    30 Cal.2d 838 (Cal. 1947)   Cited 31 times
    Stating that "there is no provision for a judicial determination of the question of the sanity of a defendant delivered to the warden of a state prison for execution except as set forth in section 3701"

    It is not necessary for the verdict finding him insane to be vacated before the trial court may proceed. ( People v. Rice, 83 Cal.App. 55, 60 [ 256 P. 450].) When the provisions in question of both section 1372 and section 3704 were adopted in 1905, a substantially similar provision of the Criminal Practice Act (Stats.

  2. People v. Bachman

    130 Cal.App.2d 445 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 12 times
    In Bachman, the court, adopting one of the two alternative procedures provided for in section 5501, subdivision (c), of the Welfare Institutions Code, imposed sentence, then suspended it and instituted sexual psychopathy proceedings.

    It is not necessary for the verdict finding him insane to be vacated before the trial court may proceed. ( People v. Rice, 83 Cal.App. 55, 60 [ 256 P. 450].)"

  3. People v. Schuler

    87 Cal.App. 68 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)   Cited 4 times

    The defendant did not request that he be again tried for sanity, and cannot be heard to complain on appeal that he was insane at the time of the trial. In People v. Rice, 83 Cal.App. 55 [ 256 P. 450], the court said (pp. 236 and 237): "In the instant case no application was made by any person to submit the question of the then mental status of the defendant to a jury for determination; in the absence of any such request and where no objection was made at the opening of the trial to proceeding therewith by the defendant, any irregularities, if there were such, in the procedure leading up to the bringing of the defendant from the state hospital before the superior court for trial, were immaterial and of no consequence, and did not in any way affect his substantial rights." [9] During the closing argument the following colloquy occurred:

  4. United States v. Ragen

    149 F.2d 948 (7th Cir. 1945)   Cited 4 times

    See Annotation, 91 A.L.R. 98 and cases there cited. See also People v. Rice, 83 Cal.App. 55, 256 P. 450; State v. Rose, 271 Mo. 17, 195 S.W. 1013. Judgment reversed.

  5. Smith v. Roach, Warden

    106 P.2d 536 (Wyo. 1940)   Cited 3 times

    We cannot hold that after discharge and before the entry of the order the petitioner retained the status of an insane person so as to deprive the district court of jurisdiction in the criminal proceedings. See People v. Farrell, 31 Calif. 576; People v. Rice, 83 Calif. App. 55, 256 P. 450; People v. Superior Court, 4 Cal .2d 136, 47 P.2d 724; State v. Pritchett, 106 N.C. 667, 11 S.E. 357. It is also alleged that petitioner pleaded guilty in reliance on the previous promise of the judge of the district court that if the plea were entered he would impose a sentence of only five years imprisonment.