People v. Beach

California Supreme Court Sep 1, 1898 No. Crim. No. 422Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The superior court cannot review or overrule a magistrate's finding of probable cause on a motion to set aside an information, as the phrase 'legally committed' only requires that the magistrate had jurisdiction and heard evidence.

Issues

Whether a superior court may review the sufficiency of evidence presented to a magistrate on a motion to set aside an information.
Whether the defendant bears the burden of proving that a commitment order was not regularly made.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the superior court cannot review and overrule the finding of the magistrate that the evidence taken before him was sufficient.”

“the phrase “legally committed” means only that the accused has been committed by a magistrate who has jurisdiction to hold the examination, and who has actually heard the evidence and determined that probable cause exists”

“The presumption is, that official authority has been regularly and legally exercised, until the contrary is shown.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Setting Aside Information—Legality of Commitment.—Under section 995 of the Penal Code, which provides for setting aside an information in case “the defendant had not been legally committed by a magistrate,” the phrase “legally committed” means only that the accused had been committed by a magistrate who had jurisdiction to hold the examination, and who had actually heard the evidence, and determined that probable cause existed for holding the defendant to answer.

Id.—Sufficiency of Evidence—Gonolusiveness of Finding by Magistrate.—If a magistrate, upon a complaint duly made and charging a public offense, has heard the evidence, and has committed the defendant, that ends the matter, so far as concerns a motion to set aside the information for insufficiency of the evidence to show that a public offense had been committed. Upon such motion, the superior court cannot review and overrule the finding of the magistrate that the evidence taken before him was sufficient.

Id.—Order for Commitment—Presumption.—A motion to set aside an information cannot be sustained merely because it does not appear that an order for commitment was made, or indorsed upon the depositions, if it does not appear that such order was not regularly and properly made. It is incumbent on the moving party to establish that the defendant was not legally committed; and, until the contrary is shown, the presumption is that the official authority to commit was regularly and legally exercised.

TEMPLE, J. This appeal is from an order setting aside an information on the ground that defendants had not been legally committed.

It is contended that the defendants had not been legally committed because the evidence before the magistrate did not show [38]that a public offense had been committed. If the magistrate had no power or jurisdiction to hold the examination, if no complaint had been made charging the defendants with a public offense, and perhaps if no evidence at all was taken by the magistrate, zand there was no waiver by the defendants, it might beheld that the defendants had not been legally committed. (People v. Howard, 111 Cal. 655.) The phrase “legally committed” refers to the examination of the charge and holding the defendant to answer by the magistrate. (Ex parte Baker, 88 Cal. 84.) If a magistrate, upon a complaint duly made and charging a public offense, has heard the evidence and has committed the defendant, that ends the matter so far as concerns this motion.

The question here is *■ as upon habeas corpus, whether a person is illegally deprived of his liberty, but whether he can legally be tried upon a criminal charge. A preliminary examination and commitment by a magistrate is required before an information can be filed, and an examination by a grand jury before an indictment, not so much to protect the liberties of the citizen as to protect them from being prosecuted upon slight evidence or mere suspicion, or at the instigation of private malice. A trial before a jury must still be had before a final judgment can be made depriving an accused person of his liberty. These precautions are entirely conventional, although since the days of the Star Chamber they have been deemed of the highest importance. The guaranty of a speedy trial to an accused person has made such precautions of less importance than formerly as affecting the liberty of the people.

The right to have a charge dismissed is regulated by statute, and, as we have seen, the phrase “legally committed” means only that the accused has been committed by a magistrate who has jurisdiction to hold the examination, and who has actually heard the evidence and determined that probable cause exists for holding the defendant.

The point was decided in People v. More, 68 Cal. 500. Counsel attempt a distinction on the ground that the alleged defect there was that venue was not shown, but the difference is not obvious. If the point was founded in fact there as here the evidence failed to show an offense for which the magistrate could legally hold the accused person. The decision was a construe-

People v. Beach

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief