People v. Anderson (1916) · DecisionDepot

People v. Anderson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal May 23, 1916 No. Crim. No. 338.Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the superior court has jurisdiction over violations of the fish and game laws under Penal Code section 636, and that an information need not negate statutory exceptions unless they are part of the definition of the offense.

Issues

Whether the superior court has jurisdiction over violations of Penal Code section 636.
Whether an information must negate statutory exceptions found in other subdivisions of the statute.
Whether the information sufficiently alleged the commission of a public offense by failing to explicitly state the net was used in 'waters.'
Whether the fine imposed was unconstitutionally excessive.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the superior court had jurisdiction.”

“such exceptions and provisos were to be negatived in the pleading only where they are descriptive of the offense or define it, and that where they afford matter of excuse merely, they are to be relied on in defense.”

“To allege that a net was cast in a certain bay for the purpose of taking fish implies that it was cast in waters.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Napa County, and from an order denying a new trial. Henry C. Gesford, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CHIPMAN, P. J.

Defendant was informed against by the district attorney of Napa County for the crime of violating the fishing laws of the state and was convicted of the crime charged. He moved for a new trial, which being denied, he was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars, and, in default thereof, to be imprisoned in the county jail at the rate of one day for each two dollars of said fine. He appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

The charge was laid under subdivision 7 of section 636 of the Penal Code, the charging part of the information being as follows: “Did willfully and unlawfully cast, extend and use a net for the purpose of taking fish at and within Fish

[544]

and Game District Mo. Two (2) of the State of California, to wit: at the extreme northern end of and within Fly’s Bay, in the County of Napa, State of California,” etc. Subdivision 7 of said section of the Penal Code reads as follows: “Every person who, in fish and game districts numbers one, two, three, four, fourteen, twenty, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight and twenty-nine, shall cast, extend or use, or who shall assist in casting, extending or using any net for the purpose of taking fish, mollusks or crustaceans is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

1. Defendant contends that the judgment should be reversed for want of jurisdiction, the contention being that the jurisdiction is in the justice’s court, under section 19 of the Penal Code, for the reason that subdivision 7,

supra,

makes a violation of said subdivision a misdemeanor without specifying the penalty, in which case section 19 governs. It is further contended that, to hold that the superior court has jurisdiction, “it would be necessary to construe section 2 that follows subdivision 12 of section 636 as a part of section 636.” Section 2, which follows subdivision 12 of section 636 of the Penal Code, reads: “Every person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail in the county in which conviction shall be had, not less than fifty days or by both such fine and imprisonment. ...” The supreme court, in

People v. Anderson

AI Brief

Synopsis

CHIPMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief