People v. Chuey Ying Git

California Supreme Court Dec 21, 1893 No. No. 21013Published

Before: Searls

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant waives objections to a defectively described property allegation in an information by failing to demur, and that such a defect is cured by the verdict.

Issues

Whether an information charging robbery is fatally defective for failing to specify the value or detailed description of the property taken.
Whether the defendant waived the right to challenge the sufficiency of the information by failing to demur.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the complaint into evidence to establish the date of the offense.
Whether the exclusion of testimony regarding the disappearance of the victim's daughter constituted reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“after judgment in an action without objection, whether in a civil or criminal case, a pleading which states a cause of action or offense, but states it defectively, cannot be successfully attacked.”

“There is here an attempt to describe the personal property taken, a lame one it must be confessed, but, imperfect though it be, it is nevertheless such an one as will support a judgment.”

“A review of the cases, coupled with the phraseology of our code, leads to the conclusion that the defect in the information was waived by the defendant.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Robbery—Information—Description of Property.—An information charging the defendant with robbery, which describes the property taken as “personal property, to wit: money, jewelry, and hair ornaments,” although imperfect, is sufficient to support a judgment of conviction of the offense charged, where no objection was taken thereto before judgment.

Id.—Waiver of Defective Description.'—Where an information charging the crime of robbery is defective in not sufficiently describing the property taken, but there is no demurrer interposed to the information, and no objections to testimony upon the ground of the insufficiency of the information, the defect is waived.

Id. —Evidence—Complaint Fixing Date Testified to by Chinese Witness.—Where, upon the trial of Chinese defendants charged with robbery of a Chinese woman, the prosecuting witness described the robbery as having taken place on the “ Chinese October 26th,” and stated that she knew nothing of the American date, but that it was the day before she made and filed the complaint, it was proper for the trial court to admit the complaint in evidence for the purpose of fixing the date.

Id.—Disappearance oe Daughter ot Prosecuting Witness. —Testimony proffered by the defendants in reference to the disappearance and whereabouts of the daughter of the prosecuting witness, on the day of the robbery, is properly excluded as not pertinent to any issue in the case.

Searls, C. The appellants were accused by information of the crime of robbery, and upon a trial Woo Ah Woy and Chung Ki Foon were convicted.

The appeal is prosecuted from the final judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.

The first objection to the judgment is that the court erred in rendering judgment against the defendants in the case, “because the information upon which said defendants were tried and convicted did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.”

The information is in all respects in consonance with the usual form in cases of robbery, except that the only description of the property taken is as follows, “ personal property, to wit: money, jewelry, and hair ornaments.”

There is no demurrer interposed to the information, no objections to testimony upon the ground of the insufficiency of the information and no motion in arrest of judgment.

All objections appearing upon the face of the indictment must be taken by demurrer, “ except that the objection to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the indictment or information, or that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense, may be taken at the [439]trial, under the plea of not guilty, or after the trial in arrest of judgment.” (Pen. Code, sec. 1012).

In People v. Swenson, 49 Cal. 388, the indictment was as follows: “of the crime of an assault with intent to commit murder, committed as follows, to wit: the said C. G. T. Swenson, on or about . . . . , did assault with intent to commit murder one Benjamin Cook.”

Defendant failed to demur to the indictment, but did move in arrest of judgment. This court held that by failing to demur the defendant had waived the objection, and could not move in arrest of judgment on the ground that the indictment did not conform to the requirements of sections 950, 951, and 952 of the Penal Code, and that as the indictment contained a sufficient charge of an assault, the judgment could not be arrested on the ground of not stating facts constituting a public offense.

“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.” (Pen. Code, sec. 211.)

People v. Chuey Ying Git

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief