People v. Jordan

YORK, J.

The principal question raised on this appeal by the defendant is similar to the written objection to the information and the demurrer filed in the trial court on behalf of the defendant. The objection made is that counts one, two, three, four, and five of an information charged the defendant with the offenses of grand theft; objection being made that on the dates when the various offenses were alleged to have been committed section 484 of the Penal Code of California defined larceny as the felonious stealing, taking, carrying, leading, or driving away the personal property of another. A few hours before the time of the last offense charged section 484 of the Penal Code was amended (Stats. 1927, p. 1046, sec. 1) so that it described as grand theft the offense charged, and included larceny, grand larceny, and false pretenses, as well as embezzlement; that defendant objected on the ground that at the dates when the crimes were alleged to have been committed the defendant would have had to have been tried only on an information limiting the offense to the felonious stealing, taking, carrying, leading, or driving away the personal property of another instead of having to stand trial on an indictment under which the People could have proven the additional offenses hereinbefore set forth.

If under the facts alleged the defendant could have been found guilty of a crime which would have carried a greater or different penalty there might be something in the contention of counsel for the appellant, but apparently the only difference in penalty would- be if the object stolen were an automobile valued at less than $200. In the given case the law as amended and under which the indictments were drawn does not alter the legal rules of evidence in the case at bar, and the portion of the section providing for a determination of the value of the property obtained would be inapplicable to the given case, as the taking of money only is charged in the various counts of the information.

[545]

There is nothing in the law as amended and objected to under which the present proceeding is had that in any way aggravates the particular crime or crimes herein charged, or in any way makes it any greater crime than it was under the law as it stood at the time when it was committed. This is so because of the fact that the defendant is charged only with taking money, which offense the amendment to the act does not in any way aggravate or in any way make any greater. The evidence shows that the facts proved against appellant were those establishing the commission of the crime heretofore known as the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses. Furthermore, the law as amended does not change the punishment for the particular crime herein charged, and does not in any way provide for the infliction of any greater punishment than was annexed to the particular crime charged when the crime was committed.