In Re Satterthwaite

California Court of Appeal May 11, 1939 No. Civ. No. 1675Published

Before: Pullen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the justice's court failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedures for peace bond proceedings, specifically by failing to take and reduce to writing the testimony of witnesses in the presence of the accused.

Issues

Whether the justice's court complied with the statutory requirements of Penal Code sections 701-714 in ordering a peace bond.
Whether a justice's court judgment is entitled to a presumption of validity in proceedings to keep the peace.

Disposition. Writ granted and petitioner discharged.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The procedure under which this action was taken is purely statutory, and the steps therein set forth must be closely followed.”

“Also the justice’s court being a court of limited jurisdiction, there is no presumption in favor of the validity of its judgment.”

“Therefore, in view of the showing before us, we are forced to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed in sections 701 to 714 of the Penal Code, was not followed.”

PULLEN, P. J.

Petitioner, in lieu of a bond, is confined in the Napa County jail under an order of commitment to keep the peace. A complaint was filed charging petitioner with the crime of threats against life, and after a hearing before a justice of the peace an order committing petitioner was made. Alleging illegality in the procedure, this writ of

habeas corpus

is presented.

Section 701 of the Penal Code provides that an information charging that a person has threatened to commit an offense against the person or property of another, may be laid before a magistrate.

The next section provides that upon the filing of such an information the magistrate must examine on oath the informer and any witnesses he may produce and must take their depositions in writing, subscribed by the party making the same. If it appears therefrom that there is just reason to fear the commission of the offense threatened by the person so informed against, the magistrate must issue a warrant to a peace officer, reciting the substance of the offense and commanding the officer forthwith to arrest the person informed of and to bring him before the magistrate. Section 704 of the Penal Code then requires that if the charge is controverted the magistrate must take testimony, which must be reduced to writing and subscribed by the witnesses. If it appears from such testimony that there is no just reason to fear the commission of the offense alleged to have been threatened the person complained of must be discharged, otherwise he may be required to enter into an undertaking to keep the peace.

Section 714 of the Penal Code provides that surety to keep the peace or be of good behavior cannot be required except as prescribed in chapter III, paragraph 2, title 1, which are the sections above summarized.

Examining the allegations of the writ which are not challenged by the return, we find that on January 14, 1939, a document referred to as a complaint was filed in the justice’s court, in the following words:

[632]

“John S. Smith of Calistoga in the county of Napa, State of California, being first duly sworn, makes complaint and deposes and says, that in Calistoga Township, County of Napa, State of California, on the 14th day of January, 1939, and before the filing of this complaint, the crime of Threats against Life was committed by George Satterthwaite, who is now in the County of Napa, as follows, to-wit:

In Re Satterthwaite

AI Brief

PULLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief