People v. Schuber

California Court of Appeal Nov 26, 1945 No. Crim. 1929Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a magistrate may only hold an accused for trial if there is competent, independent evidence of the corpus delicti, and that extrajudicial statements of a defendant cannot satisfy this requirement.

Issues

Whether a preliminary examination requires the same rules of evidence regarding competency as a criminal trial.
Whether a defendant's extrajudicial statement is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti at a preliminary examination.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The proof which will authorize a magistrate in holding an accused person for trial must consist of legal, competent evidence.”

“There cannot be one rule of evidence for the trial of cases and another rule of evidence for preliminary examinations.”

“The invariable rule which is supported by numerous Calfornia cases is that the extrajudicial uncorroborated admissions of a defendant may not be considered in the absence of substantial independent proof of the corpus delicti.”

THOMPSON, J.

The People have appealed from an order dismissing an information filed against the defendant under section 288 of the Penal Code, on the ground that the preliminary examination fails to show that a public offense has been committed as alleged, or otherwise, or that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant is guilty thereof.

This same case was previously before this court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted for lack of competent evidence to show that a public offense had been committed or that the defendant was guilty thereof.

(In re Schuler,

68 Cal.App.2d 424 [156 P.2d 944].) The prisoner was discharged. He was thereafter rearrested upon the same charge, and another preliminary examination was held. He was accused of lascivious conduct upon his nine-year-old stepdaughter.

The child was not called at the first preliminary examination. She testified to no incriminating facts at the present examination. She had a lacerated vagina, but she was not asked what caused that injury. No witness testified in that regard. We have no way of telling from competent evidence what caused the injury. In response to all pertinent questions she insisted that she “did not know” what, if anything, her stepfather did to her.

The transcript on this appeal contains no new competent evidence of the commission of a public offense, or that the defendant is guilty thereof. The defendant’s extrajudicial statement against interest is substantially the only evidence relied upon at both hearings. Independent of that statement there is no evidence of even a prima facie showing of the corpus delicti.

The appellant has filed elaborate briefs contending that the rule of evidence with respect to the competency of testimony to be adduced at a regular trial of a criminal ease does not apply to a mere preliminary examination, and that the extrajudicial statement of the defendant may be sufficient upon which to hold him for trial, or at least, that the state

[775]

ment, together with other circumstances appearing at the hearing, warranted the magistrate in determining there was evidence of probable cause to believe he was guilty of the offense.

People v. Schuber

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief