People v. Suprerior Court

California Court of Appeal

People v. Suprerior Court

199 P. 840, 53 Cal. App. 185, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 347

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 13, 1921

DocketCiv. No. 3667.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 199 P. 840 (People v. Suprerior Court) 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. Suprerior Court, 199 P. 840, 53 Cal. App. 185, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioners have applied for a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent court from dismissing a certain criminal action.

[1] It appears from the petition that in response to a motion of the defendants in that action,, the superior court, acting through the judge named in the petition herein, has ordered that the district attorney furnish each of the defendants with a bill of particulars covering certain matters described in the motion. The court granted the motion, and further stated that unless the bill of particulars is furnished the court will dismiss the action. The district attorney has declined to comply with the order.

The question whether or not, in a criminal action, the court may require the people to furnish a bill of particulars apparently has not been passed upon in this state, except that in People v. Alviso, 55 Cal. 230, the supreme court stated that the furnishing of such bill of particulars is not required by any section of the Penal Code “and we do not call to mind any rule of law requiring the same to be *186 done.” For authorities generally covering this subject, see Annotated Cases 1913A, 1207.

It is not necessary to pass upon the question above stated, and we express no opinion thereon. We think that respondent has jurisdiction to- dismiss the action for any reason that it determines to be in furtherance of justice. (Pen. Code, sec. 1385; People v. More, 71 Cal. 546, [12 Pac. 631].) For this reason the petition is denied.

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

THE COURT.

Petitioners have applied for a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent court from dismissing a certain criminal action.

[1] It appears from the petition that in response to a motion of the defendants in that action,, the superior court, acting through the judge named in the petition herein, has ordered that the district attorney furnish each of the defendants with a bill of particulars covering certain matters described in the motion. The court granted the motion, and further stated that unless the bill of particulars is furnished the court will dismiss the action. The district attorney has declined to comply with the order.

The question whether or not, in a criminal action, the court may require the people to furnish a bill of particulars apparently has not been passed upon in this state, except that in People v. Alviso, 55 Cal. 230, the supreme court stated that the furnishing of such bill of particulars is not required by any section of the Penal Code “and we do not call to mind any rule of law requiring the same to be *186 done.” For authorities generally covering this subject, see Annotated Cases 1913A, 1207.

It is not necessary to pass upon the question above stated, and we express no opinion thereon. We think that respondent has jurisdiction to- dismiss the action for any reason that it determines to be in furtherance of justice. (Pen. Code, sec. 1385; People v. More, 71 Cal. 546, [12 Pac. 631].) For this reason the petition is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 P. 840, 53 Cal. App. 185, 1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-suprerior-court-calctapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack