Banschbach Habeas Corpus Banschbach Habeas Corpus

Banschbach Habeas Corpus

133 MONT. 312, 323 P.2D 1112, 1958.MT.0000041

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Publisher Description

COURTS ? WRITS OF REVIEW ? INFANTS ? JURY ? PLEADING. 1. Courts ? Office of writ of review. The writ of review cannot be used to correct errors within jurisdiction of a lower court. 2. Jury ? Right to jury trial. Where either the Constitution or statute gives the right to a trial by jury and a jury is demanded and not waived, the jury constitutes an essential part of the tribunal authorized to determine the facts, and a court in attempting to determine facts without a jury exceeds its jurisdiction. 3. Infants ? When judge may determine facts. Under statute dealing with delinquent children, it is only when there has been no demand for a jury or waiver of a jury trial, that a judge may determine the facts. 4. Courts ? Allegations accepted as true on motion to quash. On motion to quash a writ of review, Supreme Court must accept the allegations of the petition as stating the true facts. 5. Jury ? Determination of fact questions. The only tribunal that has jurisdiction to try issues of fact in a case where the statute confers the right to a jury trial when demanded, is the court sitting with a jury, if a jury has not in fact been waived. 6. Jury ? Waiver of jury trial. If an accused proceeds to trial without making his desires for a jury known, he waives a jury trial. 7. Jury ? When jury trial may be demanded. In the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, it is not too late to demand a jury on the day of trial. 8. Jury ? Juvenile entitled to jury trial here. Where minor, in proceeding wherein he was charged with being a delinquent child, made a demand for a jury trial at the opening of trial, as well as on the day preceding the trial, juvenile court was without jurisdiction to try him without a jury. 9. Jury ? Regard for orderly conduct of proceedings by attorneys. In the absence of legislation or rule of court fixing a definite time for a demand for a jury, it is proper and timely at any time before the taking of testimony to demand a jury trial, although proper regard for orderly conduct of proceedings of the court and arrangement of its calendar should prompt attorneys who desire a jury trial to make their demand known as soon as possible, and particularly before the jury panel is excused, when they know or have reason to believe that panel is about to be excused. - Page 313

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
1958
24 March
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
12
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
62.1
KB

More Books by Supreme Court of Montana

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Glassing St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Glassing
1994
Matter of J.S. & P.S Matter of J.S. & P.S
1994
Curtis & Vilensky v. District Court Curtis & Vilensky v. District Court
1994
Watkins v. Williams Watkins v. Williams
1994
State v. Phillips State v. Phillips
1954
Gullickson v. Mitchell Gullickson v. Mitchell
1942