In Re Stambaugh

California Court of Appeal Oct 23, 1931 No. Docket No. 59.Published

Before: Jennings

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a criminal complaint is sufficient to withstand a habeas corpus challenge if it attempts to charge an offense and "squints at a substantive statement of the offense," even if the complaint is technically defective or uncertain.

Issues

Whether a criminal complaint failing to allege all statutory elements is subject to attack via habeas corpus after a conviction.
Whether the omission of specific statutory language in a complaint renders a judgment void.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In determining the sufficiency of the complaint which is here attacked the greatest liberality of construction must be indulged”

“if the facts alleged squint at a substantive statement of the offense the writ will not lie.”

“it is obvious that it attempts to charge an offense; it at least squints at an offense of which the court wherein petitioner was tried had jurisdiction”

JENNINGS, J.

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Recorder’s Court of the City of Fullerton, in Orange County, of the offense of selling gasoline which he falsely represented to be gasoline of a manufacturer, or producer other than the true manufacturer, or producer thereof and was sentenced to pay a fine of $75, and, in default of the payment thereof, to be confined in the county jail of said county at the rate of one day for each $2.00 of said fine. The complaint filed in said cause purported to charge petitioner with a misdemeanor under the provisions of section 1, chapter 697, of the Statutes of 1929, p. 1207.

That portion of the provisions of said section within which it was sought to bring the alleged act of petitioner by the charging part of the complaint, reads as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to sell, offer for sale or assist in the sale of any gasoline, distillate, or lubricating oil for internal combustion engines, and wilfully and falsely represent such gasoline, distillate or lubricating oil to be gasoline, distillate, or lubricating oil of any dealer, manufacturer or producer other than the true dealer, manufacturer or producer thereof, ...”

It is contended by the petitioner that the complaint which purports to charge him with the offense of which he was convicted fails to state a public offense under the provisions of section 1 of the statute cited, and that, therefore, the judgment of the court rendered pursuant to the verdict of the jury is void and that petitioner is illegally restrained and deprived of his liberty.

The charging part of the complaint is in the following language: “The crime of misdemeanor was committed by F. S. Stambaugh . . . who at the time and place last aforesaid did wilfully and unlawfully offer for sale and delivery, and did sell . . . one half (%) gallon of gasoline and did then and there falsely represent such gasoline to be the gasoline of a manufacturer or producer other than the true manufacturer or producer thereof ...”

[662]

It appears from the record herein that petitioner took an appeal from the judgment of the recorder’s court to the Superior Court of Orange County and that the judgment of said recorder’s court was affirmed.

In Re Stambaugh

AI Brief

JENNINGS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief