People v. Maddux

STURTEYANT, J.

The district attorney filed an information against the defendant charging him with having committed the crime of grand theft. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty. The defendant made a motion for a new trial. The motion was denied. From the judgment entered on the verdict and the order denying a new trial the defendant has appealed.

On this appeal the defendant earnestly contends that he was tried and convicted under a statute that was enacted subsequent to the alleged date of his offense. In the information it was alleged that the offense was committed on the twenty-second day of November, 1926. The information was filed on the second day of May, 1929. It is conceded that the information was framed under the amendments to sections 484 and 486 of the Penal Code as amended. (Stats. 1927, pp. 1046, 1047.) In this connection the defendant asserts that real property cannot be the subject of larceny and therefore cannot be the subject of obtaining property under false pretenses. He cites and relies on

People

v.

Cummings,

114 Cal. 437 [46 Pac. 284], and

People

v.

Folcey,

78 Cal. App. 62 [247 Pac. 916], Those cases state a doctrine which, if it still obtained, might be

[171]

claimed to support the contention of the defendant. However, the doctrine of those cases was highly technical and unsatisfactory and in so far as this case is concerned the doctrine of the eases cited had been modified if not entirely departed from.

(People

v.

Rabe,

202 Cal. 409, 418 [261 Pac. 303].) As the first and second points made by the defendant are but different methods of presenting the same general contention, it follows that they may not be sustained.