People v. Miller

22 P. 934, 82 Cal. 107, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 812
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 18, 1889
DocketNo. 20593
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 22 P. 934 (People v. Miller) 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. Miller, 22 P. 934, 82 Cal. 107, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 812 (Cal. 1889).

Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

Appellant and his wife were tried and convicted of criminal conspiracy. The information upon Which they were tried states that “H. Miller and Minnie Miller, being then and there husband and wife, are accused by the district attorney of the said county [San Diego] by this information of the crime of criminal conspiracy.”

The minutes of the court show that after the defendants had been found guilty by the verdict of a jury, and [108]*108their motion for a new trial denied, they appeared for sentence, when the following proceedings were had. We copy from the minutes: “The court at this time sentences Minnite Miller to a fine of one dollar, which the court will pay. The court at this time sentences H. Miller to be imprisoned in the county jail of San Diego county for a term of one year.”

Defendant H. Miller appeals. His sole contention here is, that the information does not accuse him of any offense, because a man and his wife, being in law but one person, no prosecution for a conspiracy can be maintained against them.

That such was the rule of the common law, we cannot doubt, and we find nothing in the code or statutes of this state to indicate an intention of the legislature to change it.

The defendants could only be tried upon an indictment or information which accused them of a criminal offense; a trial upon an information which does not. accuse them of a criminal offense was wholly unauthorized, and the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, with directions to the court below to discharge appellant from imprisonment.

Works, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

Beatty, C. J.

The foregoing judgment and decision is hereby approved, and remittitur ordered to issue forthwith.

Fox, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.

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

Related

People v. Roy
251 Cal. App. 2d 459 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
People v. Pierce
395 P.2d 893 (California Supreme Court, 1964)
People v. Charles
218 Cal. App. 2d 812 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)
People v. James
189 Cal. App. 2d 14 (California Court of Appeal, 1961)
People v. Keller
332 P.2d 174 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
People v. Martin
122 N.E.2d 245 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1954)
State v. Phillips
82 S.E.2d 762 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
People v. Estep
104 N.E.2d 562 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1952)
People v. Statley
91 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 943 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
People v. Statley
206 P.2d 76 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1949)
People v. Little
107 P.2d 634 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
People v. MacMullen
24 P.2d 794 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
People v. Ingles
3 P.2d 341 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
People v. Eppstein
290 P. 1054 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Dawson v. United States
10 F.2d 106 (Ninth Circuit, 1926)
People v. Graff
211 P. 829 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Dalton v. People
68 Colo. 44 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1920)
Doolittle v. Doolittle
166 Iowa 625 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1914)
Jones v. Monson
119 N.W. 179 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 P. 934, 82 Cal. 107, 1889 Cal. LEXIS 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miller-cal-1889.