People v. Chuck
Citations
- 66 Cal. 662
- 6 P. 859
- 1885 Cal. LEXIS 519
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Preliminary Examination—Commitment—Depositions—Filing Information.—The defendant was arrested, and carried before the police judge’s court of the city and county of San Francisco, upon a complaint charging him with an assault with intent to commit robbery. After the preliminary examination, the police judge indorsed on the depositions taken before him the following: “It appearing to me hy the testimony of the within witness that the offense herein mentioned has heen committed, and that there is sufficient cause to believe the within named Lee Ah Chuck guilty thereof, I order that he be held to answer the same,’’ etc. After this indorsement the police judge added, “charge of felony, to wit, attempt to rob.” Held, that the commitment was regular, and for the offense appearing by the depositions to have been committed, and that the district attorney was authorized to prosecute by information for the offense so appearing.</p> <p>Id.—District Attorney—Designation of Offense by Magistrate.—The district attorney may proceed by information against a defendant, for any offense appearing by the depositions taken on the preliminary examination to have been committed ; be is not confined to filing an information for the offense designated by the magistrate.</p> <p>Id.—Failure to Return Depositions.—If the depositions are not returned, the district attorney must proceed by information for the offense designated by the magistrate.</p> <p>Id.—Order of Commitment—Complaint.—In the order of commitment the police judge found that “ the offense, as charged in the complaint, felony, to wit, attempt to commit robbery, has been committed.” The complaint charged an assault with intent to commit robbery. Held, that the order should be construed as a finding that the offense charged in the complaint had been committed.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence—Facts Occurring Subsequent to Offense.—In a criminal prosecution, evidence of incidents occuring subsequent to the day on which the offens
Judges: Thornton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. StaplesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-09-03· cited 37×
- People v. ThomsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-12-29· cited 33×
- State v. EllsworthOregon Supreme Court· 1896-12-21· cited 28×
- People v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-03-01· cited 27×
- Dickey v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals· 1916-06-30· cited 18×
- People v. Wong ChueyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-08-03· cited 18×
- People v. VierraCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-07-28· cited 14×
- Ex parte NicholasCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-11-14· cited 13×
- People v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-12-07· cited 13×
- People v. DorlandCalifornia Supreme Court· 1934-12-31· cited 10×
- People v. GiancoliCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-01-31· cited 10×
- Taggart v. BoschCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-05-29· cited 5×
- People v. GillisCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-03-18· cited 1×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.