Singh v. Superior Court
Before: Hart
Synopsis
PROCEEDING in Prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Superior Court of Glenn County and William M. Finch, Judge thereof, from hearing, proceeding with and deciding any matter in connection with a certain indictment.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
HART, J.
The petition asked for a writ of prohibition restraining and prohibiting respondents from hearing, proceeding with, and deciding any matter in relation to a cer
[65]
tain indictment returned by the grand jury of Glenn County against petitioner.
The charging part of said indictment reads as follows: “The said Channan Singh . . . did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and corruptly, offer and give a bribe, to wit: Five hundred dollars, in currency, lawful money of the United States, to one H. W. McGowan, who was then and there, and on the 6th day of Jan., 1919, and ever since said time has been and now is, an executive officer of the state of California, to wit, the duly elected, qualified and acting district attorney of the county of Glenn state of California, with the intent then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and corruptly to influence the act, vote, decision and opinion of the said H. W. McGowan, as such officer, in respect to the prosecution of a certain action entitled
The People of the State of California
v.
Santa Singh, Mit Singh and Ishar Singh,
on the charge of the crime of assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to commit murder, . . . then and there . . . pending in the superior court of the county of Glenn, state of California, contrary,” etc.
The indictment herein assailed is based on section 67 of the Penal Code, which reads: “Every person who gives or offers any bribe to any executive officer of this state, with intent to influence him in respect to any act, decision, vote, opinion, or other proceeding as such officer is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than one nor more than fourteen years, and is disqualified from holding any office in this state.”
The contention of the petitioner is that a district attorney is neither an executive officer nor an officer of the state.
Waiving consideration of the question, which, under some of the decisions in this state, might arise here, whether the petitioner has available to him for the relief he seeks by this proceeding a plain and an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the real ground of his objection to the indictment being that that document does not state a public offense under any known law of this state, we will proceed to consider the merits of the contention advanced by him.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)