People v. Upchurch

California Court of Appeal

People v. Upchurch

76 Cal. App. 3d 721, 143 Cal. Rptr. 113, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1160

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 11, 1978

DocketCrim. 16909

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 76 Cal. App. 3d 721 (People v. Upchurch) 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. Upchurch, 76 Cal. App. 3d 721, 143 Cal. Rptr. 113, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1160 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

—The People have appealed from an order rendered pursuant to Penal Code section 995 by which the superior court set aside an information charging respondent William Henry Upchurch with destruction of prison property (Pen. Code, § 4600) and conspiracy to destroy prison property (Pen. Code, § 182). We affirm the order.

At the preliminary hearing the prosecution presented evidence that respondent, an inmate at the state prison at Soledad, smashed the state-owned television set with which his cell was furnished. There was evidence also that respondent acted in concert with other inmates who smashed their television sets, as an act of protest and defiance connected with the discipline of another inmate.

Penal Code section 4600 provides felony punishment for a person who “breaks down, pulls down, or otherwise destroys or injures any jail or prison, . . ” 1 In granting the motion to set aside the information, the trial court declared that “We have a rule of strict construction dealing with penal statutes . . . .” There is no such rule in California; penal statutes “are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms, ... to effect [their] objects and to promote justice” (Pen. Code, § 4; 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, § 10, pp. 12-13). No statutory definition of the term “prison” has been found, but in common usage the term refers to “A public building or other place for the confinement or safe custody of persons, ... in the course of the administration of justice” (Black’s Law Diet. (4th ed. 1968) p. 1358, col. 1). Under that usage, the statute would apply to damage done to the grounds and structure (including fixtures) of a prison, but not to furniture or equipment such as a television set. Damage to state-owned furniture or equipment located in a prison would be punishable as malicious mischief, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 594) but not as the

*724 felony offense of destroying or damaging the prison itself. The court acted correctly in setting aside the information.

Affirmed.

Caldecott, P. J., and Ragan, J., * concurred.

1

The statute provides a misdemeanor penalty for damage of $200 or less to any “city, city and county or county jail property----”

*

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

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

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

—The People have appealed from an order rendered pursuant to Penal Code section 995 by which the superior court set aside an information charging respondent William Henry Upchurch with destruction of prison property (Pen. Code, § 4600) and conspiracy to destroy prison property (Pen. Code, § 182). We affirm the order.

At the preliminary hearing the prosecution presented evidence that respondent, an inmate at the state prison at Soledad, smashed the state-owned television set with which his cell was furnished. There was evidence also that respondent acted in concert with other inmates who smashed their television sets, as an act of protest and defiance connected with the discipline of another inmate.

Penal Code section 4600 provides felony punishment for a person who “breaks down, pulls down, or otherwise destroys or injures any jail or prison, . . ” 1 In granting the motion to set aside the information, the trial court declared that “We have a rule of strict construction dealing with penal statutes . . . .” There is no such rule in California; penal statutes “are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms, ... to effect [their] objects and to promote justice” (Pen. Code, § 4; 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, § 10, pp. 12-13). No statutory definition of the term “prison” has been found, but in common usage the term refers to “A public building or other place for the confinement or safe custody of persons, ... in the course of the administration of justice” (Black’s Law Diet. (4th ed. 1968) p. 1358, col. 1). Under that usage, the statute would apply to damage done to the grounds and structure (including fixtures) of a prison, but not to furniture or equipment such as a television set. Damage to state-owned furniture or equipment located in a prison would be punishable as malicious mischief, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 594) but not as the

*724 felony offense of destroying or damaging the prison itself. The court acted correctly in setting aside the information.

Affirmed.

Caldecott, P. J., and Ragan, J., * concurred.

1

The statute provides a misdemeanor penalty for damage of $200 or less to any “city, city and county or county jail property----”

*

Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Cal. App. 3d 721, 143 Cal. Rptr. 113, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-upchurch-calctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack