People v. Chuck

California Supreme Court Apr 29, 1885 No. No. 20,024Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a district attorney may prosecute by information for any offense shown by the depositions to have been committed, regardless of the specific offense designated by the committing magistrate. However, the judgment was reversed because the trial court improperly restricted the cross-examination of a witness regarding potential bias and prior inconsistent statements.

Issues

Whether an information is limited to the specific offense designated by a committing magistrate or may include any offense shown by the depositions.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding cross-examination questions intended to show witness bias.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding cross-examination questions intended to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The district attorney is not controlled, in such circumstances, by the mistaken designation of the offense by the magistrate.”

“These questions had a tendency to show feeling in the prosecution of the offense by the witness, and should have been allowed.”

“They were admissible to impeach the witness, by showing that he had made statements in his examination before the police court different from those made on the trial.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Preliminary Examination—Commitment—Depositions—Filing Information.—The defendant was arrested, and carried before the police judge’s court of the city and county of San Francisco, upon a complaint charging him with an assault with intent to commit robbery. After the preliminary examination, the police judge indorsed on the depositions taken before him the following: “It appearing to me hy the testimony of the within witness that the offense herein mentioned has heen committed, and that there is sufficient cause to believe the within named Lee Ah Chuck guilty thereof, I order that he be held to answer the same,’’ etc. After this indorsement the police judge added, “charge of felony, to wit, attempt to rob.” Held, that the commitment was regular, and for the offense appearing by the depositions to have been committed, and that the district attorney was authorized to prosecute by information for the offense so appearing.

Id.—District Attorney—Designation of Offense by Magistrate.—The district attorney may proceed by information against a defendant, for any offense appearing by the depositions taken on the preliminary examination to have been committed ; be is not confined to filing an information for the offense designated by the magistrate.

Id.—Failure to Return Depositions.—If the depositions are not returned, the district attorney must proceed by information for the offense designated by the magistrate.

Id.—Order of Commitment—Complaint.—In the order of commitment the police judge found that “ the offense, as charged in the complaint, felony, to wit, attempt to commit robbery, has been committed.” The complaint charged an assault with intent to commit robbery. Held, that the order should be construed as a finding that the offense charged in the complaint had been committed.

Id.—Evidence—Facts Occurring Subsequent to Offense.—In a criminal prosecution, evidence of incidents occuring subsequent to the day on which the offense was alleged to have been committed is admissible, when such facts relate to a transaction which partly occurred on the day of the commission of the offense.

Id.—Cross-Examination—Hostility of Witness.—The defendant in a criminal case is entitled to cross-examine a witness for the prosecution, for the purpose of showing his hostility to the accused; and the refusal to permit such cross-examination is error, unless it appear as a matter of law that the answers of the witness to the questions asked could have no tendency to-show bias on his part.

Id.—Impeachment of Witness—Contradictory Statements.—Evidence that a witness for the prosecution made statements in his examination before the police court different from those made on the trial, is admissible for the. purpose of impeachment.

Thornton, J. The information in this case accused the defendant “ of the crime of felony, to wit, an attempt to commit robbery, committed as follows : The said Lee Ah Chuck, Ah Sam and Ly Cheung, on the twenty-third day of January, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, at the said city and county of San Francisco, in and upon one Chun Chuen, feloniously and with force and violence did make an assault, with intent the money, goods and chattels of the said Chun Chuen from the person and immediate presence and against the will of him, the said Chun Chuen, then and there feloniously and by force, violence and intimidation to rob, steal, take and carry away, contrary to the form,” etc.

The defendant, prior to this information, had been arrested and carried before the police judge’s court of the city and county of San Francisco, upon a sworn complaint charging the defendant with the same offense as that set forth in the above information.

After the preliminary examination, the following indorsement was made on the depositions taken in the court just above named, by the police judge :

“It appearing to me by the testimony of the within named witnesses that the offense herein mentioned has been committed, and that there is sufficient cause to believe the within named ” Le Ah Chuck guilty thereof, I order that he be held to answer the same, and that he be admitted to bail, etc.

The police judge, in making this indorsement after prefixing the title of the case, adds “ charge of felony, to wit, attempt to rob.”

The defendant moved in the court below, on the showing above stated, to strike out the information, on the ground that he had been committed by the police judge for the offense of an attempt to commit robbery, while the information charged him with a different offense, viz, an assault with intent to commit robbery. That the information is contrary to law, for the reason that it charges an offense other than that for which he was held to answer and committed.

[664]The statute provides for'a preliminary examination of the defendant prior to his being committed and held to answer. (Penal Code, §§ 858, 859, 860, et seq.) The testimony of each witness, in cases other than that of homicide, is to be reduced to writing, upon the demand of the prosecuting attorney or the defendant, or his counsel. (Penal Code, § 869.) This appears from the indorsement to have been done.

People v. Chuck

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief