People v. Hill (1918) · DecisionDepot

People v. Hill

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

California Court of Appeal Mar 23, 1918 No. Crim. No. 707.Published

Before: THE COURT. —

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the perjury conviction but remanded the case for resentencing because the imposition of an indeterminate sentence for a crime committed before the law's enactment violated the ex post facto clause.

Issues

Whether the information sufficiently set forth the substance of the perjury charge under Penal Code section 966.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Whether the district attorney's reference to evidence during closing argument constituted prejudicial misconduct.
Whether the trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate sentence for a crime committed prior to the law's effective date.

Disposition. Remanded for resentencing

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The purpose of the requirement of setting forth the substance of the controversy or matter in which the perjury is alleged to have taken place is to inform the defendant of the offense with which he is charged”

“the indeterminate sentence law is ex post facto as to crimes committed before it took effect.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order denying a new trial. H. Z. Austin, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

THE COURT.

The defendant was convicted in the superior court of Fresno County of perjury, and an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment in a state penitentiary was imposed upon him. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying him a new trial.

The points insisted upon for a reversal of the judgment and order are that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the information; insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict; misconduct of the district attorney by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair and impartial trial, and that the court erred in not determining the period of the defendant’s confinement.

Considering the first point raised, it appears that the information sets forth, among other things, that at a certain time in the superior court of the county of Fresno there was on trial a certain action in which the people of the state of California were plaintiff and Clarence C. Boling was defendant, and that it was then and there material to know in said action where the defendant Boling was on the night of December 6, 1915, and whether or not said Boling at said time stayed all night with Hill, the defendant in this case, at a place known as Hub. It is claimed that this is not a

[576]

sufficient setting forth of the controversy or matter in respect to which the offense was committed to comply with the provisions of section 966 of the Penal Code.

We think this statement of the indictment was a sufficient presentation of the matter in which it'is charged that Hill committed the perjury complained of. The purpose of the requirement of setting forth the substance of the controversy or matter in which the perjury is alleged to have taken place is to inform the defendant of the offense with which he is charged, and this is as effectually done by the statement above given as if the whole proceedings of the trial had been incorporated in the information. The demurrer to the information on this ground was properly overruled.

The next, and main, point urged by the appellant for a reversal is the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.

The verdict of the jury is that Hill, in testifying in the case of

People v. Hill

AI Brief

Synopsis

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief