People v. Scott

Searls, C. J. The defendant was accused by information, in the county of San Bernardino, of the crime of burglary, alleged to have been committed in said county. He interposed a plea of not guilty. Upon the trial there was evidence tending to prove the defendant guilty of a burglary committed at Indio, in the county of San Diego, and that the property (a coat and pistol), feloniously taken from a house burglariously entered, was taken by defendant to the county of San Bernardino, where he was arrested, informed against, tried, and convicted.

At the trial, objections were made by defendant to testimony under the information, going to show a burglary committed in the county of San Diego, which objections were overruled by the court and exceptions taken. These rulings are assigned as error.

A motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial in behalf of defendant was overruled.

Section 786 of the Penal Code provides as follows:—

“ When property taken in one county, by burglary, robbery, larceny, or embezzlement, has been brought into another, the jurisdiction of the offense is in either county,” etc.

No question is made that the defendant might have been proceeded against in either county.

The real question, however, is one of pleading; under an indictment or information charging a burglary to have been committed in the county of San Bernardino, could evidence be received of an offense committed in the county of San Diego ?

In other words, should the information in the case as stated have charged, according to the facts, that the burlary was committed in the county of San Diego, and that the property was brought into the county of San Bernardino ?

At common law, crimes were considered as altogether local, cognizable and punishable exclusively in the juris[96]diction where committed. (Story on Conflict of Laws, sec. 620, and cases cited.)

It was said in Warrender v. Warrender, 9 Bligh, 119: “The lex loci must needs govern all criminal jurisdiction, from the nature of the thing and the purposes of that jurisdiction.”

At common law, it was held that a person indicted in England for robbing a house in Guernsey, and bringing-the property to England, could not be convicted either of larceny or of receiving. (Regina v. Debruiel, 11 Cox C. C. 207.)