People v. Thompson

California Supreme Court Jul 15, 1854Published

Before: Heydenfeldt, Murray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the indictment was sufficient, the procedural objections regarding transfer and plea entry were meritless, the denial of a continuance was proper, and the court had the authority to amend the sentencing date.

Issues

Whether the indictment was legally sufficient under the criminal code.
Whether the indictment was properly transferred between courts.
Whether the denial of a continuance for lack of witness attendance was proper.
Whether a plea of not guilty entered by counsel in the defendant's absence is valid.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The facts necessary to be set forth are provided in the-statute, and whenever it is substantially followed, so as to-put the prisoner upon fair notice of the offense charged, and the time, place and circumstances necessary to constitute the crime, it will be sufficient.”

“The 299th section, taken by itself, would seem to be a reaffirmance of the common law, which required the prisoner to plead in person; the latter section, however, alters this principle, by rendering it unnecessary for the prisoner to be present”

“It was perfectly competent for the Court, at any time before final judgment signed, to amend its judgment, so that either sentence was good.”

Synopsis

Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District.

Thompson was convicted of tbe murder of Andreas Fajardo.

Tbe indictment commenced tbus: “John H. [239] Thompson is *accused by tbe grand jury of Calaveras County, by this indictment, of tbe crime of murder, committed as follows:5’ It tben proceeds to charge tbe offense in the adopted technical form of an indictment for murder by shooting, but omits the averments locating and describing the wounds, and the averment that it is found on the oaths of the jurors. Thompson applied for a postponement of his trial, and, in support of his application, filed his affidavit in the following words: “John H. Thompson, the defendant in the above entitled action, being duly sworn, says that he has fully and fairly stated the case in the above action to Fred. Teiser and William J. Gatewood, his counsel in said action, who reside in said county, and that he has a good and substantial defense on the merits to said action, as he is advised by said counsel, after such statement made as aforesaid, and verily believes to be true that John Hicks is a necessary and material witness for deponent on the trial .of said action, and a witness without whom he cannot safely proceed to trial, as he is advised by his said counsel after a full statement of all the facts, he expects, and is assured, he can prove by said witness; and that said witness resides in this county, and that deponent hath used all diligence in his power to obtain said witness; that the absence of the said John Hicks is not by the desire, request, or procurement of this deponent; that defendant expects to be able to procure the attendance of the said witness at the next term of this Court; and that to bring the trial on at this term would work great hardship, as it would leave him, if not entirely without witnesses, at least without the most material one; he therefore prays that this trial may be postponed until the next term of this Court.”

Mr. Ch. J. .Murray delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. J. Heydenfeldt concurred. This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the District Court, the appellant having been found guilty of “murder.”

1. The first error assigned is, that the indictment is “insufficient in law for want of accuracy,” etc.

The criminal code of this State has abolished the subtle distinctions and nice technicalities usually observed in an *indictment at common law. The [240] Legislature, regarding the form of indictments as used in the older States as of little consequence, so far as the substantial rights of the State or the prisoner are involved, and the strict construction given in such cases too often resulting in the escape of the criminal on some immaterial ground or clerical error, have prescribed a simple [241]form of indictment, for the purpose of obviating these difficulties and preserving the ends of justice.

The facts necessary to be set forth are provided in the-statute, and whenever it is substantially followed, so as to-put the prisoner upon fair notice of the offense charged, and the time, place and circumstances necessary to constitute the crime, it will be sufficient. While we are unwilling to reverse a case upon a mere technicality, we desire to call the attention of Courts and prosecuting officers throughout the State to the necessity of more strictness of pleading than has been evinced by the appeals lately brought to this Court.

It is certainly not difficult under our statute to frame an indictment which is sufficient; and every requisition of the law, from the formation of the grand jury to the final sentence of the Court, whether directory or mandatory (in the opinion of the Court below), should be complied with and set forth in the record.

On examination of the indictment in this case, we are of opinion it is substantially correct, and does not appear to have been excepted to. The point is not well taken.

2. It is said the indictment was not transferred from the Court of Sessions to the District Court in the manner pointed out by the statute.

. This objection was not taken upon the trial, and if it had been, we do not think it would have been material. The Court would have cured the error by directing the Clerk to indorse the same.

People v. Thompson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief