People v. McConnell

23 P. 40, 82 Cal. 620, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 614
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 29, 1890
DocketNo. 20583
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 23 P. 40 (People v. McConnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. McConnell, 23 P. 40, 82 Cal. 620, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 614 (Cal. 1890).

Opinion

Foote, C.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary in the first degree. Prom the judgment rendered in the premises, and an order refusing him a new trial, he appeals.

The ground upon which his contention is based is, that he was not legally committed by a magistrate, and for that reason the superior court, which has tried him, had no jurisdiction to do so. ■ He did not make any motion to set aside the information, but raised the question by demurrer.

In order to sustain a demurrer to the information on the ground that the trial court is without jurisdiction of the offense charged therein, the want of such jurisdiction must appear from the face of the information. (Pen. Code, sec. 1004.)

A demurrer to an information on the ground that the defendant has not been legally committed by a magistrate is not permissible under the section of the Penal [621]*621Code, supra. The point must be made on a motion to set aside the information. (Pen. Code, secs. 995, 996; Ex parte Moan, 65 Cal. 218.)

The motion in arrest of judgment made herein could not prevail, because it should have been founded upon defects in the information appearing on the face thereof. (Pen. Code, secs. 1004, 1185; People v. Johnson, 71 Cal. 392.)

The defendant asserts, in the points and authorities filed on his behalf, that it appears from the transcript he interposed a motion to set aside the information when he was arraigned, but the transcript fails anywhere to show that a motion to set aside the information was ever made.

We therefore advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

Vancliff, C., and Gibson, C., concurred.

The Court.

— For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Heaing in Bank denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Pierce
California Court of Appeal, 2019
People v. Henson
California Court of Appeal, 2018
People v. Henson
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 305 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2018)
Tobe v. City of Santa Ana
892 P.2d 1145 (California Supreme Court, 1995)
People v. Tolbert
176 Cal. App. 3d 685 (California Court of Appeal, 1986)
Shortridge v. Municipal Court
151 Cal. App. 3d 611 (California Court of Appeal, 1984)
People v. Dury
152 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 23 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1983)
People v. Williams
97 Cal. App. 3d 382 (California Court of Appeal, 1979)
People v. Miles & Sons Trucking Service, Inc.
257 Cal. App. 2d 697 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Ratner v. Municipal Court
256 Cal. App. 2d 925 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
People v. Hale
232 Cal. App. 2d 112 (California Court of Appeal, 1965)
People v. Rivera Oquendo
46 P.R. 109 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1934)
Pueblo v. Rivera Oquendo
46 P.R. Dec. 113 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1934)
State v. Probst
249 N.W. 711 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 P. 40, 82 Cal. 620, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcconnell-cal-1890.