# People v. Chessman

> California Supreme Court · December 18, 1951 · 38 Cal. 2d 166

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552917

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CARYL CHESSMAN, Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 18, 1951
- **Citations:** 38 Cal. 2d 166; 238 P.2d 1001; 1951 Cal. LEXIS 198
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carter
- **Judges:** Schauer, Carter, Edmonds
- **Cited by:** 197 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by People v. Daniels, 71 Cal. 2d 1119 (1969).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552917

## Opinion text

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
Because, as was pointed out in the dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Edmonds and myself in People v. Chessman, 35 Cal.2d 455, 468, 469 [ 218 P.2d 769 , 19 A.L.R.2d 1084 ], there is no adequate record upon which this court may review the judgments of conviction against the defendant, I would reverse said judgments and order denying defendant a new trial on that ground alone. A reading of the majority opinion, however, convinces me that many flagrant errors were committed during the trial which would ordinarily be held to be prejudicial and require the reversal of a judgment of conviction. In fact, the only way I can rationalize the majority opinion is that those concurring therein feel that a person charged with 17 felonies of the character of those charged *194 against the defendant, and who represents himself, is not entitled to a trial in accordance with the rules applicable to. the ordinary criminal case. I cannot subscribe to this doctrine.
EDMONDS, J.
The judgments of conviction, including two which carry a sentence of death, are affirmed upon a record which, admittedly, is not a complete transcript of the proceedings before the trial court. As I pointed out in People v. Chessman, 35 Cal.2d 455, 470 [ 218 P.2d 769 , 19 A.L.R.2d 1084 ], the transcript omits certain pertinent testimony and was made up in a manner which does not comply with the Rules on Appeal. It was certified by the trial judge as a substitute for a correct record and was considered by him “. . . as the basis of establishing a transcript on appeal. ’ ’
Manifestly, this court could not make “an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence” as required by the Constitution (Const., art. VI, § 4½) without “the entire record of the action” to which the appellant is entitled. (Rules on Appeal, rule 33, subd. c.) Notwithstanding these provisions, in the absence of a showing by the appellant that he has been prejudiced by omissions and inaccuracies in the record, the approximate and inexact transcript is held to be a sufficient basis for reviewing the judgments of conviction. Such procedure, in my opinion, has taken from Chessman a substantial right.
For these reasons, and without considering other points presented by the appellant, I would reverse the judgments of conviction and remand the cause for a new trial.
A petition for a stay of remittitur and appellant’s petition for a rehearing were denied January 15, 1952. Edmonds, J., and Carter, J., were of the opinion that the petition for a rehearing should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9552917. Public record. Not legal advice.