# People v. Durrant

> California Supreme Court · March 3, 1897 · 116 Cal. 179

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5448531

## Case

- **Full name:** THE PEOPLE v. WILLIAM HENRY THEODORE DURRANT
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 3, 1897
- **Citations:** 116 Cal. 179; 48 P. 75; 1897 Cal. LEXIS 528
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McFarland
- **Judges:** Henshaw, McFarland
- **Cited by:** 192 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5448531

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting defendant's claimed error on a challenge for cause and stating, “The defendant may not have reviewed an error which he has invited or failed to avoid by the legal means at his command.”

## Opinion text

McFarland, J., concurring.
I have signed the opinion of Mr. Justice Hensliaw, and thereby concurred in his opinion and in the judgment of affirmance. But while I can see no legal ground for a reversal of the judgment, I desire to say that the conviction of appellant would have been much more satisfactory if he had been tried in some county far beyond the reach of the threatening atmosphere which surrounded him at the place of his trial, and where the active and long continued attempts to forestall judicial inquiry and compel a hostile decision could not possibly have had much force. As the case stands it is somewhat difficult to feel sufficiently assured that outside adverse pressure *226 did not liave some insensible influence. Bat, whether or not appellant had a substantially fair trial, notwithstanding circumstances which certainly made it difficult for him to have such a trial, is a question which addressed itself, in the first instance,- to the presiding judge of the trial court; and it is not so apparent that he abused his discretion in determining that question in the affirmative, as to give this court warrant to reverse the order denying a new trial. As to the -other points involved in the appeal, I am clear that no substantial error was committed.
Rehearing denied.
Beatty, C. J., dissented from the order denying a rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5448531. Public record. Not legal advice.