People v. Silbelo

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 1923 No. Crim. No. 651.Published

Before: Hart, Finch, Burnett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an amendment to an information that changes only the description of the overt act in a conspiracy charge, without altering the nature of the offense, is a matter of form rather than substance and does not prejudice the defendant. Furthermore, the court held that the failure to instruct the jury on accomplice corroboration was not prejudicial where there was ample independent evidence of the defendant's guilt.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to amend the information after the defendant entered a plea.
Whether the amended information failed to meet statutory requirements for clarity and certainty.
Whether the failure to instruct the jury on the necessity of corroborating accomplice testimony constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The amendment involved a matter of form and not of substance.”

“The amended information meets all these requirements.”

HART, J.

The defendant was, by information filed in the superior court of the county of Nevada, jointly charged with Segundio Rodriguez, Vincent Alvarez, and Albert Gnsenwald with the crime of conspiracy, under section 182

[93]

of the Penal Code, as amended by the legislature of 1919 (Stats. 1919, ,pp. 170, 171).

The jury found him guilty as charged and he appeals from the judgment and the order denying him a new trial.

The information as originally filed alleged that the parties just named and the defendant, on or about the sixteenth day of March, 1922, in the county of Nevada, “unlawfully and feloniously did conspire and agree ... to commit the crime of burglary, to-wit: by then and there feloniously to burglarize the office of the North Star Mines Company, . . . , and the said Sílbelo,

in pursuance and furtherance of said conspiracy and to effect the object thereof, did attempt to pick the loch of the door of the office of the said North Star Mimes Company to enter and consummate the purposes of said, conspiracy,”

etc.

Subsequently to the trial and conviction of the defendant’s co-conspirator, Segundio Rodriguez, in whose case an opinion by this court upholding the result arrived at in the court below has this day been filed, and after the defendant had entered his plea to the information as originally filed, the court allowed the district attorney, upon motion, to amend the information by striking out the words above italicized and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

“ . . . and that on said 16th day of March, A. D. 1922, at and in the County of Nevada, . . . , the said C. Sílbelo, in execution of said last mentioned premises, and in pursuance and furtherance of said conspiracy, combination, confederation and agreement with Vincent Alvarez, Segundio Rodriguez and Albert Greenwald, and to effect the object thereof, did attempt to unlawfully, feloniously and burglariously enter said building, to-wit, said office of the North Star Mines Company, . . . , with the intent then and there to commit the crime of grand larceny, a felony, ’ ’ etc.

People v. Silbelo

AI Brief

HART, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief