¶1— The point made in this case is, that the prisoner has been committed without reasonable or probable cause; and that question turns upon whether or not a public offense has been committed triable within this jurisdiction. I deem it improper at this time to prejudice the case of the prisoner by any analysis of the evidence which has been presented, and which may be different at his trial, and of the law applied thereto. Whether it is sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the province of the jury to say, and ought not to be determined in advance on habeas corpus. It is enough now to say that an examination of the sections of the code bearing on the question, and of such evidence as has been presented, fails to show that the commitment is without reasonable or probable cause. The cases cited by the petitioner are not in point, for here there is some evidence, other than the extrajudicial admissions of the party, tending to show that an offense has been committed. Let the writ be discharged, and the prisoner remanded.
86 Cal. 402
Ex parte Becker
Decided November 21, 1890
California Supreme Court · decided 1890-11-21
Application to the Supreme Court for a discharge on a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1890-11-21
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1985
1 district · 5 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 →