People v. Hood
Before: Murray
Synopsis
An indictment for arson, charging that the accused “ did on a certain day bum, or cause to be burned, a certain dwelling house,” is bad, because the charge is laid in the alternative, whereas it should be special.
An indictment should set forth the facts and circumstances of the alleged offence, so that the accused may be prepared for his defence.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray. Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
The indictment in this case charges the accused of the crime of arson, in this, that on a certain day, etc., “ he did burn or cause to be burned, a certain dwelling house, etc.”
This is not a sufficient description of the offence; first, because the charge is laid in the alternative, whereas it should be special; and second, because the facts and circumstances of the alleged offence are not set forth in such a manner as to apprise the prisoner of the offénce charged against him, so that he may be prepared for his defence. See the case of the People v. Aro, April term, 1856.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)