People v. Magallones
Before: Cope
Synopsis
Indictment and trial in the Court of Sessions in the city and county of San Francisco, for larceny, charged to have been committed within said city and county. The evidence tended to show that the offense was there committed, and the verdict was “ guilty as charged in the indictment.” Held, that the verdict was conclusive, as to the offense being committed within the jurisdiction of said Court.
An Assistant Prosecuting District Attorney, appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, under the Act of April 23d, 1858, (238) is not limited in his official action to any particular class of cases. The true construction of the statute is, that he shall be Prosecuting Attorney in the Police Court, and shall assist the District Attorney in the discharge of his various legal duties.
One of these duties is the prosecution of charges before the grand jury, and if the Assistant may perform the duty, he must be deemed to be clothed with the powers and privileges necessary for that purpose. While acting for the District Attorney, his acts possess the same validity, and must be regarded in the same light, as if done by that officer in person.
It is no objection to an indictment found in said Court of Sessions, that such Assistant Prosecuting District Attorney was present during the session of the grand jury, while the charge embraced in the indictment was under consideration.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.
There is nothing in either of the points made by the defendant’s counsel.
1. The evidence tended to show that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the Court, and the verdict of the jury is conclusive of the question. In addition to this, it does not appear that all the evidence is set forth in the record.
2. The Act of April 23, 1858, authorizing the Board of Supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, to appoint an Assistant Prosecuting District Attorney, does not define specifically the duties of that officer, except that it provides that he shall be “ the Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Court of said city and county.” The act evidently contemplates, however, that he shall assist the District Attorney in the discharge of all his official duties. The section authorizing the appointment reads as follows: “ To have power to appoint an Assistant Prosecuting District Attorney, who shall hold said office during the pleasure of said Board. The said assistant shall also be the Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Court of said city and county, and shall [429]receive a salary, as such assistant and Prosecuting Police Attorney, of twenty-four hundred dollars per annum, payable monthly out of the general fund, which shall be in full for all services rendered for said city and county, or for either of them.” There is nothing in this section which limits the authority of this officer to any particular class of cases, and its true construction is, that he shall be Prosecuting Attorney for the Police Court, and shall assist the District Attorney in the discharge of the various duties devolving upon him *by law. One of these duties is the prosecution of charges before the grand jury, and if the assistant may perform the duty, he must be deemed to be clothed with the powers and privileges necessary for that purpose. While acting for the District Attorney, his acts possess the same validity, and must be regarded in the same light, as if done by that officer in person.
Judgment affirmed.
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)