People v. Nogiri (1904) · DecisionDepot

People v. Nogiri

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

California Supreme Court Mar 25, 1904 No. Crim. No. 997.Published

Before: Henshaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a district attorney lacks the authority to file an information charging an offense different from the one for which the magistrate committed the defendant, as the district attorney's role is purely ministerial.

Issues

Whether a district attorney may file an information charging an offense other than that for which the magistrate held the defendant to answer.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The result of these decisions is to vest in a ministerial and executive officer, the district attorney, supervisorial, appellate, and judicial powers controlling the judgment of a judicial magistrate”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Information—Commitment—Complaint—Ministerial Functions of District Attorney.—In the filing of informations the functions of the district attorney are ministerial only, and not appellate over those of the committing magistrate. He has no power to file an information for any greater or other offense than that specified in the commitment hy the magistrate, though in accordance with the complaint made before the magistrate.

Id.—Commitment for Assault with Deadly Weapon—Setting Aside Information Charging Intent to Murder.—Where the commitment was for an assault with a deadly weapon, and the information charged an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit ' murder, a motion to set aside the information for want of a legal commitment for the offense charged must he sustained. It is immaterial that the record does not show the complaint filed with the committing magistrate.

[597]

HENSHAW, J.

The defendant was committed by a justice of the city of Los Angeles for the crime of an assault with a deadly weapon. Subsequently the district attorney filed his information against him, charging him with an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder. Upon arraignment defendant moved to set aside the information upon the ground that prior to its filing he had not been legally committed by the magistrate for the offense charged against him.

The scanty record here presented fails to show the charge made against him in the complaint filed with the committing magistrate." The respondent therefore argues that, under the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and under the rule that error must be shown and will not be presumed

(People

Ebanks,

117 Cal. 655;

People

Holmes,

118 Cal. 444;

People

Beach,

122 Cal. 37), this court will hold that the complaint before the committing magistrate charged the defendant with the identical offense for which an information was subsequently filed against him. Respondent further argues that it being thus established that the information charged upon the offense contained in the complaint before the committing magistrate, upon the authority of

People

Vierra,

67 Cal. 231;

People

Lee Ah Chuck,

People v. Nogiri

AI Brief

Synopsis

HENSHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief