People v. Sherman

California Supreme Court Apr 11, 1893 No. No. 20,922Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an information need not contain the names of witnesses, that sufficient evidence supported the commitment and conviction, and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

Issues

Whether an information must contain the names of witnesses examined before a magistrate.
Whether the defendant was legally committed by a magistrate based on sufficient evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence offered to impeach a witness and in its handling of jury instructions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There are, however, no provisions requiring the names of witnessed to be inserted at the foot of or indorsed upon an information”

“We do not think, therefore, that it can be said there was no evidence tending to show the defendant’s guilt”

“if the watch was taken from the person of Bowers, the offense was grand larceny, whether its value was greater or less than $50”

Synopsis

Information—Indorsing Names of Witnesses.—The names of witnesses examined before the committing magistrate need not be inserted at the foot of or indorsed on the information filed in court against defendant after he had been examined before such magistrate, though Penal Code, section 943, provides that when an indictment is found the names of the witnesses before the grand jury must be so indorsed.1

Larceny.—Where There is Evidence Before the Convicting Magistrate that a watch was taken from one B. when he was asleep, and when defendant and one F. were present, and it was afterward found concealed on the person of F., so as to indicate that it must have been taken feloniously, a finding by the trial court that defendant had been legally committed by the magistrate will not be disturbed on appeal.

Larceny.—The Stealing of a Watch from the Person of another is grand larceny, though the value of the watch is less than $50.

Witness.—Testimony to Show Improper Relations between the state’s witnesses, a man and woman, in order to impeach the woman’s testimony, is inadmissible.

Instructions.—The Court has a Right to Amend Imperfect instructions submitted.

BELCHER, C. The defendant and one Lulu Franks were examined before a magistrate, and held to answer upon a complaint charging them with the crime of larceny, committed in the county of Placer, on or about the seventh day of June, 1891, by “willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and maliciously stealing, taking, and carrying away one watch of the value of $75, the property of one S. T. Bowers.” Thereafter the district attorney filed in the superior court of the county an information charging that the defendant, on or about the seventh day of June, 1891, in the county of Placer, “did then and there feloniously steal, take, and carry away from the person of S. T. Bowers one gold watch, of the value of seventy-five dollars,” etc. When the defendant was called upon to plead to the information, he moved the court to set it aside upon the grounds: “ (1) That the names of the witnesses examined before the committing magistrate are not inserted in or at the foot of said information, or indorsed thereon. (2) That before the filing of said information the said defendant had not been legally committed by a committing magistrate, in this: that after hearing the proofs it did not appear that a public offense had been committed, and there was not sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty thereof.” The court denied the motion, and the defendant, reserving an exception to the ruling, then pleaded not guilty to the charge. Subsequently the defendant was tried and found guilty of grand larceny, and judgment was entered that he be imprisoned in the state prison at Folsom for the [853]term of six years and three months. Prom this judgment, and an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

The first point made for a reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in refusing to set aside the information upon both of the grounds stated in the motion. Section 943 of the Penal Code provides: “When an indictment is found, the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury, or whose depositions may have been read before them, must be inserted at the foot of the indictment, or indorsed thereon, before it is presented to the court.” And section 995 of the same code provides that an indictment must be set aside, on motion, upon several grounds, and, among others, when the names of the witnesses are not inserted or indorsed as required. There are, however, no provisions requiring the names of witnessed to be inserted at the foot of or indorsed upon an information, and the only grounds stated on which an information must be set aside are: “(1) That before the filing thereof the defendant had not been legally committed by a magistrate; (2) that it was not subscribed by the district attorney of the county”: See sections of code above cited. It is clear, therefore, that the court rightfully refused to set aside the information upon the first ground stated.

People v. Sherman

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief