gno.law

People v. Miller

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 688. · 1917-09-17 · Published · 168 P. 574 · 34 Cal. App. 641 · 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 221

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOHN MILLER, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Fresno County
Trial judge
H. Z. Austin
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Henry Brieldey, and
Area
criminal
Panel
The Court. &#8212 (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

THE COURT.

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].)

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.

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.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by