People v. Hawley

HOUSER, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of attempt to commit grand theft, as well as from an order by which his motion for a new trial was denied.

The indictment against defendant in effect charged him with the commission of the crime of “attempt to commit grand theft” in that defendant “did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempt to take property,” etc.

In urging a reversal of the judgment, appellant contends that the indictment fails to state the commission of a public offense; that it does not conform to the requirements of sections 950 and 952 of the Penal Code in that it is neither direct nor certain either in regard to the offense charged or to the circumstances thereof; and that the indictment fails to inform the defendant “of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,” and contains no statement of the acts constituting the offense “in ordinary and concise language and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”

It is possible that, in accordance with rulings contained in authorities cited by appellant, all of which were rendered prior to statutory amendments in 1927 [Stats. 1927, p. 1043] and 1929 [Stats. 1929, p. 303] to sections 951 and 952 of the Penal Code, the claimed defects in the indictment might be considered as well taken. But by such recent legislation a sufficient form of an indictment or an information is set forth, and, in addition thereto, it is provided in general that an indictment or information shall be considered sufficient if

[218]

in substance it contain a statement that the accused committed the public offense therein specified, and particularly, in charging theft, that it shall be sufficient to allege that the defendant unlawfully took the property of another.

A comparison of the form of indictment prescribed by section 951 of the Penal Code with the indictment returned by the grand jury against defendant discloses not only a substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute, but that additional information for the benefit of the defendant is contained therein. Repeatedly it has been held that an information or an indictment in the form prescribed by statute is sufficient, especially as relates to the amended statutes hereinbefore cited.