People v. Johansen

California Court of Appeal Mar 25, 1924 No. Crim. No. 741.Published

Before: Pinch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that defendants could be prosecuted for criminal syndicalism in a county where they were present under legal compulsion, as their continued membership in the organization constituted a voluntary act. Furthermore, a prior acquittal for membership in the same organization does not bar prosecution for continued membership thereafter.

Issues

Whether a court has jurisdiction over a criminal syndicalism charge when the defendant's presence in the county was compelled by subpoena.
Whether a prior acquittal for membership in an organization bars a subsequent prosecution for continued membership in that same organization.
Whether the admission of evidence regarding the organization's character after the defendants' arrest was erroneous.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The conspiracy is a continuing one and its illegality is not alone in the act of engaging therein as a member, but in the continuance of such membership.”

“A prior acquittal or conviction is not a bar to a subsequent continuance in the conspiracy.”

“Having elected not to do this, they cannot be heard to say that the offense of which they stand convicted was not voluntarily committed by them within the county of Sacramento.”

PINCH, P. J.

The defendants were convicted of violation of the Criminal Syndicalism Act. (Stats. 1919, p. 281.) They have appealed from the judgments of conviction and the orders denying their motions for new trials.

In the month of June, 1923, the criminal syndicalism case of

People

Stewart

and others was on trial in the superior court of Sacramento County. The defendant Wood was then a resident of Alameda County and the other defendants herein were residents of Los Angeles County. It does not appear that any of them had ever been in Sacramento County. In obedience to subpoenas regularly issued and served upon them they all appeared as witnesses for defendants in the Stewart ease and testified, among other things, that they were members of the I. W. W. Immediately after leaving the witness-stand, though not in the courtroom or in the presence of the jury, the defendants were arrested and thrown into jail and the indictment herein was thereafter found against them.

[346]

It is urged that, since the defendants were in Sacramento County under compulsion, and not voluntarily, they were not willfully and intentionally members of the organization in that county and that, therefore, the superior court of such county was without jurisdiction of the offense charged. It may be observed at the outset that the words “willfully and intentionally” in an indictment relate to the mental attitude of the offender rather than to the place of the offense. Section 777 of the Penal Code provides that “except as herein otherwise provided, the -jurisdiction of every public offense is in the county wherein it is committed. ” Jurisdiction of a criminal conspiracy is in the county where the agreement of conspiracy is entered into or in any county in which an overt act is committed in furtherance thereof.

(Hyde

United States, 225

U. S. 347 [Ann. Cas. 1914A, 614, 56 L. Ed. 1114, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 793, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes].) Since member: ship in a forbidden organization, without the commission of an overt act, is made punishable by the statute, it follows logically that jurisdiction of the crime of being a member thereof is in any county into which such a member may go during the continuance of his membership. The question then is whether, in a case where jurisdiction depends upon the presence of the accused in a county, the superior court thereof can acquire such jurisdiction by compelling the accused to attend as a witness in another action, or by otherwise compelling his presence in such county. The case of

People v. Johansen

AI Brief

PINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

THE COURT.

AI Brief