Defendant sought review of the judgment and order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which convicted him on a jury verdict of murder and denied his motion for a new trial.
Overview
Defendant argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred in disallowing his challenges for cause of two jurors, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that he was entitled to a new trial because he had been deprived of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment and order. The court noted the principle that errors committed in overruling challenges for cause were not grounds for reversal unless it was shown that an objectionable juror was forced upon the challenging party after he had exhausted his peremptory challenges. The top business law attorney reasoned that defendant had no cause for complaint because defendant did not see fit to exercise his right of peremptory challenge upon either of the jurors, but accepted them both. The court rejected defendant's argument for reversal on the ground that the evidence failed to disclose any motive for the crime because proof of motive was never indispensable to a conviction. The court concluded that defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated because it appeared that defendant had been tried by a jury uninfluenced by aught save the evidence.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court, which convicted defendant of murder and denied his motion for a new trial.
Petitioner real estate commissioner filed an application to obtain a writ of mandamus to compel respondent state controller to authorize the payment of expenses incurred by the state real estate department.
Overview
Real estate brokers were regulated, and the state real estate department was created, by 1919 Cal. Stat. 1252 (act). The real estate commissioner was appointed, and he sought payment of expenses that the state real estate department incurred from the state treasury. The state controller refused to authorize the payment, claiming that the act was not valid. The court issued the commissioner a writ of mandamus. It held that where one had to have certain qualifications in order to pursue an occupation, it was within the legislature's power to exact reasonable assurances that one did possess the qualifications. Real estate agents acted for others in a confidential and fiduciary capacity. They were required to discharge their duties honestly and truthfully, and the legislature had the right to require some assurance that they possessed honest qualities. Although the commissioner had the power to refuse a license if he was not satisfied as to the character of the applicant, his discretion was not arbitrary. There had to be facts that reasonably justified his conclusion that the applicant was not of good character and reputation.
Outcome
The court issued the commissioner a writ of mandamus to compel the state controller to authorize the payment of expenses incurred by the state real estate department.