People v. Sanchez

California Court of Appeal Oct 31, 1939 No. Crim. 1692Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an information omitting the words "personal property" is not fatally defective if the defendant is otherwise informed of the charge, and that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for attempted robbery based on the circumstances of the assault.

Issues

Whether the omission of the words "personal property" in an information charging attempted robbery constitutes a fatal defect.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for attempted robbery where no verbal demand for property was made.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The designated weakness of the information is the obvious omission of the words “personal property”, after the word “take” in the information. This omission, however, is not a fatal defect.”

“The circumstances fairly eliminate all other crimes other than robbery, and is the only reasonable inference from the facts.”

[317]

PULLEN, P. J. —

Defendant and one Campos were jointly charged and separately tried for an attempt to commit robbery. Prom the judgment of conviction of Sanchez he prosecutes this appeal, as well as from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Two points are here urged: First, the information failed to state a public offense; and second, that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment.

The information sets forth that “the said .Angelo Campos and Adolph Sanchez are accused by the District Attorney ... by this information, of the crime of attempt to commit robbery, a felony, committed as follows: The said Angelo Campos and Adolph Sanchez did . . . wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, and by means of force and fear, attempt to take from the person and immediate presence of one Ethel Barkhorn, against the will and without the consent of the said Ethel Barkhorn, and to accomplish said taking by means of force . . . and . . . then and there putting the said Ethel Barkhorn in fear”. The designated weakness of the information is the obvious omission of the words “personal property”, after the word “take” in the information. This omission, however, is not a fatal defect.

The defendant was informed that he was accused by the information of the crime of attempted robbery, a felony. Section 211 of the Penal Code defines robbery as the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence. That, with the meaning of the word “take”, which implies the physical seizure of something tangible, was sufficient to inform defendant of the nature of the charge. Furthermore, the testimony taken at the preliminary examination, a copy of which was delivered to defendant, clearly informed him of what he was charged. If any doubt or uncertainty existed in his mind, he should have interposed a demurrer to the information, upon the proper ground. (Sec. 1004, Pen. Code.) In

People

Hinshaw,

194 Cal. 1 [227 Pac. 156], it was held that an error in the information which did not prevent a defendant of common understanding from being fully informed as to the charge against him, is not prejudicial. In

People v. Sanchez

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief