People v. Magallones

Citations

• 15 Cal. 426

Syllabus

<p>Indictment and trial in the Court of Sessions in the city and county of San Francisco, for larceny, charged to have been committed within said city and county. The evidence tended to show that the offense was there committed, and the verdict was “ guilty as charged in the indictment.” Held, that the verdict was conclusive, as to the offense being committed within the jurisdiction of said Court.</p> <p>An Assistant Prosecuting District Attorney, appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, under the Act of April 23d, 1858, (238) is not limited in his official action to any particular class of cases. The true construction of the statute is, that he shall be Prosecuting Attorney in the Police Court, and shall assist the District Attorney in the discharge of his various legal duties.</p> <p>One of these duties is the prosecution of charges before the grand jury, and if the Assistant may perform the duty, he must be deemed to be clothed with the powers and privileges necessary for that purpose. While acting for the District Attorney, his acts possess the same validity, and must be regarded in the same light, as if done by that officer in person.</p> <p>It is no objection to an indictment found in said Court of Sessions, that such Assistant Prosecuting District Attorney was present during the session of the grand jury, while the charge embraced in the indictment was under consideration.</p>