People v. Sampson

FINCH, P. J.

The information charges the defendant with the crime of robbery and with having been previously convicted of the crime of grand larceny. Oh his arraignment he “entered a plea of guilty as to a prior conviction and not guilty as to the new charge in the information.” The jury found him guilty of robbery in the first degree. His motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for life. This appeal is from the judgment and the order denying a new trial. The proof is overwhelmingly that the defendant committed the alleged robbery and it is not contended that it is insufficient.

[308]

The information charges that the property therein described was in the possession of the prosecuting witness and was taken from his person and immediate presence, againt his will and by means of force and fear, by the defendant. It is not alleged who was the owner of the property, although it was clearly proved at the trial that it belonged to the prosecuting witness. Section 956 of the Penal Code [as amended, 1927 Stats., p. 1042, sec. 1] provides:

“When an offense involves the commission of, or an attempt to commit a private injury, and is described with sufficient certainty in other respects to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured, or intended to be injured, or of the place where the offense was committed, or of the property involved in its commission is not material. ’ ’

In

People

v.

Price,

143 Cal. 351, 353 [77 Pac. 73], after quoting section 956, it is said: “This is a rule of criminal pleading, and applies to burglary as well as larceny and other cases. Under it the name of the owner of the property entered is immaterial, except where necessary to identify the property. ’ ’ Other cases are to the same legal effect.

(People

v.

Foster,

198 Cal. 112, 119 [243 Pac. 667];