Ex parte Fenton

Decided October 3, 1888

California Supreme Court · decided 1888-10-03

The peti1'ornv bad once been arrested on a charge of grand larceny. Upon an examination before the committing magistrate, he was discharged. Afterwards he was again arrested on the same charge, examined before a different magistrate, and committed for trial. He thereupon applied to be discharged on habeas corpus, on the ground that he had been once in jeopardy. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Jeopardy”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-10-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 1974 · most notably 9 Cal. 3d 662 - People v. Uhlemann (1973), 52 Cal. 2d 330 - People v. Prewitt (1959)

24 state decisions

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.

¶1The record in this case and the agreed statement upon which it is submitted, taken together, show sufficient cause for issuing the warrant under which defendant is held.

¶2 *184The fact that defendant had been previously arrested on the same charge, examined before a magistrate, and discharged, is not a bar to a second arrest and examination.

¶3A person cannot be said to have been once in jeopardy until he is put upon trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, upon indictment or information which is sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, and a jury has been charged with his deliverance.

¶4The writ is discharged, and the defendant remanded to the custody of the sheriff.