People v. Wooster
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of San Francisco. Indictment for perjury. Defendant demurred on the grounds, among others, that the indictment does not substantially conform to sections two hundred and thirty-seven and two hundred and thirty-eight of the Criminal Practice Act in certain particulars, naming them; and that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense. Demurrer sustained, no exception being taken by the District Attorney.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Court of Sessions of San Francisco. Indictment for perjury. Defendant demurred on the grounds, among others, that the indictment does not substantially conform to sections two hundred and thirty-seven and two hundred and thirty-eight of the Criminal Practice Act in certain particulars, naming them; and that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense. Demurrer sustained, no exception being taken by the District Attorney. Further facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
Upon sustaining the demurrer to the indictment in this case, the District Attorney took no exception; but moved for and obtained an order submitting the case to another grand jury. The People now appeal from this order sustaining the demurrer. We think, under the circumstances, the appeal should be dismissed. A contrary practice would lead to oppression and confusion. The failure to except and taking the order must be considered an acquiescence in the judgment and a waiver of a right of appeal. If the grand jury had found a new bill on the resubmission, no…
2Cited by3 opinions
- People v. LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Pueblo v. CanalsSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1935
- People v. CanalsSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1935