Matter of Application of Yee Kih Mah
Before: Hart
Synopsis
City of Sacramento — Misdemeanors Committed Within Corporate Limits—Jurisdiction.—The several justices’ courts of the county of Sacramento have jurisdiction over all misdemeanors enumerated by the general laws of the state committed within the municipal limits of the city of Sacramento, as well as those committed outside of such limits and within the territorial boundaries of the county of Sacramento.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Misdemeanors—Whitney Act—Effect of Code Amendment—Repeal of Act as to Sacramento.—The provisions of the “Whitney Act” (Stats. 1885, p. 213), giving to police courts of cities having a population of over thirty thousand and under one hundred thousand inhabitants exclusive jurisdiction of all misdemeanors punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both by such fine and imprisonment, committed within the limits of such cities, if ever applicable at any time to the city of Sacramento, have been, so far as such city is concerned, repealed or superseded by the enactment of section 1425 of the Penal Code, in the year 1905 (Stats. 1905, p. 705), which provides, among other things, that justices’ courts shall have jurisdiction of all misdemeanors committed within their respective counties punishable by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Police Court of Sacramento—Effect of Charter.—The provisions of sections 162 and 164 of the freeholders’ charter of the city of Sacramento, approved in 1911 (Stats. Ex. Sess. 1911, p. 305), establishing a police court in such city and giving it jurisdiction “of all misdemeanors enumerated by the general laws or by ordinances o>f the city and of all other crimes cognizable by justices’ courts and courts of justices of the peace and police courts under the^ constitution and laws of the state of California,” do not confer upon the police court so established exclusive jurisdiction of all simple misdemeanors committed under the general laws of the state within the limits of such city, but give it concurrent jurisdiction with the justices’ courts of the county of Sacramento.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)