People v. Miller

California Court of Appeal

People v. Miller

168 P. 574, 34 Cal. App. 641, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 221

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 17, 1917

DocketCrim. No. 688.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 168 P. 574 (People v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Miller, 168 P. 574, 34 Cal. App. 641, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

It is only necessary to say in this case that the original information purported to charge a public offense, and that the amended information as filed, after the request of the district attorney and upon the permission of the court being given, did not charge an offense different from that attempted to be stated in the original information. Consequently the filing of the amended complaint neither prejudiced the defendant nor contravened the provisions of section 1008 of the Penal Code. (See People v. Rippe, 32 Cal. App. 514, [163 Pac. 506].)

The record does not sustain the contention of counsel for the defendant that the trial court refused to permit him to show upon cross-examination of the complaining witness that the latter was so drunk on the night of the assault with which the defendant is charged as not to be able to identify the defendant as one of the persons who assaulted him. That is all we think need be said as to that assignment of error.

No other point in the case requires discussion, and we are satisfied that the evidence sustains the verdict and judgment. The judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial are affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

It is only necessary to say in this case that the original information purported to charge a public offense, and that the amended information as filed, after the request of the district attorney and upon the permission of the court being given, did not charge an offense different from that attempted to be stated in the original information. Consequently the filing of the amended complaint neither prejudiced the defendant nor contravened the provisions of section 1008 of the Penal Code. (See People v. Rippe, 32 Cal. App. 514, [163 Pac. 506].)

The record does not sustain the contention of counsel for the defendant that the trial court refused to permit him to show upon cross-examination of the complaining witness that the latter was so drunk on the night of the assault with which the defendant is charged as not to be able to identify the defendant as one of the persons who assaulted him. That is all we think need be said as to that assignment of error.

No other point in the case requires discussion, and we are satisfied that the evidence sustains the verdict and judgment. The judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 P. 574, 34 Cal. App. 641, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miller-calctapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack