People v. Lepori

LENNON, P. J.

One Fassio was held to answer in the police court of the city of Oakland, on the ninth day of August, 1910, by a commitment reciting that: “It appearing

[61]

. . . that the offense, felony, to wit, grand larceny, has been committed, etc.” The complaint in the police court charged Passio with grand larceny in stealing, taking, and carrying away personal property, to wit: six hundred dollars and fifteen cents. On the twenty-third day of August, 1910, the district attorney filed an information, charging Passio with stealing, taking, and carrying away from the person of one Giambattista personal property, to wit, six hundred dollars and fifteen cents. On the twenty-fourth day of August, 1910, the defendant in this case executed a bond obligating himself to pay to the people of the state of California the sum of two thousand dollars in case Passio failed to appear and answer the crime of grand larceny, as charged in the information. Passio failed to appear on the day set for trial and the court ordered and declared the undertaking on bail forfeited. Subsequently, judgment was entered in this action against the defendant, and the appeal is from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

Appellant urges to defeat the enforcement of the penalty of the bond that the information filed against Passio is void because it charges the defaulting defendant with grand larceny under subdivision 2 of section 487 of the Penal Code, viz., larceny from the person, while he was held to answer for grand larceny without further description of the offense.

Grand larceny is larceny committed in either of the following cases: 1. When the property taken is of a value exceeding fifty dollars; 2. When the property is taken from the person of another; 3. When the property taken is a horse, mare, gelding, cow, steer, bull, calf, mule, jack, or jenny. (Pen. Code, sec. 487.)

Appellant’s contention that the information charges a different offense than that for. which defendant was held to answer, i. e., that grand larceny is something different from the offense defined in Penal Code, section 487, subdivision 2, is untenable. Grand larceny is a general term designating the offense, which the three subdivisions of section 487 of the Penal Code more particularly define. The commitment in the present case complied with tne parenthetical injunctions of section 872 of the Penal Code, and held for the “offense, according to the fact, stating generally the nature thereof,” and the information charged the crime stated in the commitment, only stating it with greater particularity.