Thurston v. Clark
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Proceeding por Removal op Oppioer—Expiration op Term—Re-election.—A proceeding for the removal of an officer under section 772 of the Penal Code cannot be maintained after the accused had ceased to hold his office, nor for a violation of his duty while serving in another office, or in another term of the same office; and an accusation will not lie for the violation of duties imposed upon the incumbent of an office during a former term.
Id.—Criminal Proceeding.—Construction op Code—Protection op Dependant prom: Crimination.—Removal from office under the summary proceeding provided for by section 772 is a punishment for wrongdoing on the part of the officer, and the proceeding is, in its nature, a criminal case within the meaning of section 13 of article I of the constitution, providing that no person shall be compelled, in a criminal case, to be a witness against himself.
Id.—Enforcement of Penalty—Qni Tam Action—Protection of Witness.—A proceeding in the nature of a gui tarn, action to enforce a penalty, no matter in what form the statute may clothe it, is, in its nature, a criminal case, and the defendant cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Searls, C. This is a proceeding under section 772 of the Penal Code to remove the appellant, P. H. Clark, from the office of sheriff of the county of Glenn, and to recover a judgment for five hundred dollars against him in favor of Joseph D. Thurston, as an informer under said section.
The cause was tried by the court, written findings filed upon which judgment was entered, depriving the defendant of .his office as sheriff of Glenn county, and that Joseph D. Thurston have and recover from said P. H. Clark the sum of five hundred dollars and costs.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The judgment and order appealed from must be reversed for many reasons, some of which are as follows:
1, It appeared, from what may be termed the complaint, that the defendant was duly elected sheriff of the county of Glenn, and qualified on the eleventh day of May, 1891; that he was re-elected to the same office on the eighth day of November, 1892, and qualified on or about December 9, 1892.
In other words he was his own successor, and under the act organizing the county of Glenn, approved March [28711], 1891, may be presumed to have taken office under his second term on the first Monday of January, 1893.
There are in the complaint about a dozen separate and distinct specifications of acts, averred as violations of law, of which some one-half, as nearly as can be determined, were for alleged misconduct during defendant's first term of office.
As to these charges or specifications the demurrer should have been sustained.
Section 772 of the Penal Code, under which this proceeding is prosecuted, is as follows: “ When an accusation in writing, verified by the oath of any person, is presented to a superior court, alleging that any officer within the jurisdiction of the court has been guilty of charging and collecting illegal fees for services rendered, or to be rendered, in his office, or has refused or neglected to perform the official duties pertaining to his office, the court must cite the party charged to appear before the court at a time not more than ten nor less than five days from the time the accusation was presented; and on that day, or some other subsequent day not more than twenty days from that on which the accusation was presented, must proceed to hear, in a summary manner, the accusation and evidence offered in support of the same, and the answer and evidence offered by the party accused; and if, on such hearing, it appears that the charge is sustained, the court must enter a decree that the party accused be deprived of his office, and must enter a judgment for five hundred dollars in favor of the informer, and such costs as are allowed in civil cases.”
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)