People v. Hernandez

GRIFFIN, J.

A court trial resulted in a conviction of defendant and appellant on four counts of violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (selling a narcotic). The sufficiency of the evidence is not questioned. The claim is that the indictment had not been found, endorsed and presented as prescribed by law, and that an unauthorized person was present before the grand jury during the taking of testimony, to wit, an interpreter who was not sworn as such. The point is that the court should have granted defendant’s motion to set aside the indictment on the grounds noted, which motion was made just prior to trial. Appellant cites such authority as

People

v.

Lem Deo,

132 Cal. 199 [64 P. 265] ;

Husband

v.

Superior Court,

128 Cal.App 444 [17 P.2d 764]; Code of Civil Procedure, section 1884, and Penal Code, section 925. Defendant has attempted to appeal from the judgment, the order denying his motion for new trial, and denying the mo

[400]

tion to dismiss the indictment, as well as all other “orders adverse to defendant’s rights.” The attempted appeal from the order denying the motion to dismiss and all other “orders adverse to defendant’s rights” must be dismissed as not being appealable.

(People

v.

Simmons,

119 Cal. 1 [50 P. 844]; Pen. Code, §§ 1237 and 1259.)

Defendant sets forth in his brief certain portions of the proceedings taken before the grand jury indicating that the record does not affirmatively show that an interpreter was necessary or was sworn. Of course this would not be a proper or sufficient record or showing in respect to the points raised.

(People