Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Cal. App. 641

168 P 574

People v. Miller

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 17, 1917

California Court of Appeal · decided 1917-09-17

<p>Criminal Law—Amended Information—Lack of Prejudice.—In a criminal action the filing of an amended information is not prejudicial to the defendant, nor in contravention of the provisions of section 1008 of the Penal Code, where the original information purported to charge a public offense and the amended information did not charge an offense different from that attempted to be stated in the original information.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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 ].) ””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 77 Cal. App. 745 - People v. Milligan

Applies CA PEN § 1008

Relies on 32 Cal. App. 514 - People v. Rippe

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1917-09-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1948

7 state decisions

501917192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THE COURT.

¶1 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].)

¶2 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.

¶3 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.

/34/calapp/641 · .json · Public domain