People v. Bishop

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 1963 No. Crim. 1783Published

Before: Stone

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An information charging conspiracy is sufficient if the introductory paragraph and the alleged overt acts are construed together to provide the defendant with notice of the offense. Evidence of acts occurring prior to the formation of a conspiracy is admissible if it tends to prove the ultimate facts in issue.

Issues

Whether an information charging conspiracy is defective if the introductory paragraph does not independently set forth the elements of the underlying offense.
Whether evidence of acts occurring prior to the alleged conspiracy is admissible.
Whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conspiracy conviction if only some of the alleged overt acts are proven.

Disposition. Judgment affirmed; appeal from order denying new trial dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the allegations of all of the paragraphs of an information charging conspiracy must be construed together”

“there is no valid objection to evidence which tends to show step by step the formation of the illicit combination merely because the evidence begins at a time long anterior to the wrongful meeting of minds.”

“Only one overt act need be proved to support a conviction of the charge of conspiracy.”

STONE, J.

Appellant was charged by an information with the crime of conspiracy to pass worthless checks. One Charles L. Groover, a janitor, stole five checks from his employer in Oakland, California. He and appellant passed three of the checks in the Castro Valley area and one in Emeryville in Northern California. They then flew to Anaheim in Southern California, where they transferred a nonexistent bank account from the Castro Valley Branch of Bank of America to the Anaheim Branch of Bank of America, and secured a book of Anaheim checks. Appellant ordered a rubber stamp bearing the words “Rinse Away, Inc., Anaheim California, C. L. Groover, Mgr.,” which he and Groover used to endorse a check. They also attempted to obtain cash by use of counter checks at three banks in the San Bernardino area.

Groover turned State’s evidence. After a jury trial appellant was convicted of conspiracy to violate Penal Code section 476a, and he has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying motion for a new trial.

Appellant contends, initially, that the information itself is defective. The information alleged:

“CONSPIRACY TO PASS WORTHLESS CHECKS (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. 1) in that on or about the 28th day of June, 1962, in the County of San Bernardino, State of California, he did wilfully and unlawfully conspire, combine and agree with Charles L. Groover to obtain money, credit and property by means of obtaining and passing worthless checks and drafts with intent to defraud, in violation of section 476a of the California Penal Code.”

Six alleged specific overt acts follow this introductory paragraph.

Appellant cites Penal Code section 952 in support of his contention that the introductory paragraph of the conspiracy information should have set forth the elements of Penal Code section 476a. Section 952 in specifying the manner in which a charged offense must be stated provides in part:

“It may be in the words of the enactment describing the

[150]

offense or declaring the matter to be a public offense, or in any words sufficient to give the accused notice of the offense of which he is accused.

People v. Bishop

AI Brief

STONE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief