People v. Jochinsky
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Burglary—Larceny— Information—Demurrer—Joinder of Offenses—Carrying Stolen Goods into County of Jurisdiction.—Although an indictment or information must not charge more than one offense, and the defendant may demur to the indictment or information when it appears upon the face thereof that more than one offense is charged, yet an indictment or information charging the offense of burglary with intent to commit larceny, and further charging that in the commission of the burglary the defendants stole, took, and carried away, as proceeds of the burglary, personal property of the value of four hundred and eighty-nine dollars, which they brought, carried, and removed into the city and county where the information was filed, is not subject to demurrer for charging more than one offense, but merely states facts showing the jurisdiction of the offense of burglary.
Id.—Jurisdiction of Burglary—Pleading.— Ordinarily the offense of burglary can be tried only in the county in which it is committed, but, under section 786 of the Penal Code, it can he tried in any county into which the property burglariously taken has been brought; but, in order to give the court in the latter county jurisdiction of the offense, the facts showing that a burglary was committed, and that property was burglariously taken and carried into that county must be set out, and an information merely complying with this rule to show jurisdiction of the offense is not subject to a demurrer for charging more than one offense.
Id.—Form of Verdict.—Where the information charged that burglary was committed in another county, and that the goods burglariously taken were brought into the county in which the information was filed, a general verdict imports a conviction of the offense charged, and it is not necessary that the verdict should specify the county in which the offense was committed, nor that the goods were taken into the county where the information was filed.
Id. —Effect of General Verdict.— A general verdict of guilty implies proof of all facts necessary to a conviction.
Id.—Surplusage in Verdict.—Surplusage in a general verdict of guilty is not prejudicial to the defendant, and is not ground for a reversal o* the judgment of conviction.
Belcher, C. The information in this case was filed in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, on the 15th of November, 1893.
It charges that in March, 1893, the defendant and one Alexander Schenkovsky did feloniously and burglariously enter the store of one Morris Prince, known as the TXT; dry goods store, in the city of Santa Rosa, county of Sonoma, state of California, with the felonious intent then and there and therein to commit larceny. IJ further charges that in the commission of the burglary the parties accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously steal, take, and carry away, as proceeds of said burglary, fifteen suits of men’s clothing, of the value of fifteen dollars per suit, and certain other described articles of clothing, all of the aggregate [640]value of four hundred and thirty-four dollars, lawful money of the United States, and the personal property of the said Morris Prince; and that thereafter, in October, 1893, they brought, carried, and removed the said personal property into the city and county of San Francisco.
The defendant demurred to the information, upon the ground that it “ charges more than one offense, to wit, burglary and grand larceny.” The demurrer was overruled and the defendant then pleaded not guilty.
The case was tried and the verdict was: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of burglary in the first degree, and we further find that the goods taken from Prince’s store on the night of the 13th and 14th of April, 1893, were brought from Sonoma county into the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, by the defendant.”
A motion for new trial was subsequently made and denied, and thereupon judgment was entered that the defendant be punished by imprisonment in the state prison at San Quentin for the term of ten years. From this judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial the defendant appeals.
1. The first point made for a reversal is that the demurrer to the information should have been sustained; and in support of this point sections 954 and 1004 of the Penal Code are cited and relied upon.
These sections provide that the indictment or information must charge but one offense, and that the defendant may demur to the indictment or information when it appears upon the face thereof that more than one offense is charged.
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)