Shope

People v. Shope

Good Law
1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 462·77 Cal. App. 427·245 P. 998
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 1926Docket No. 1319.California546 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

York, J.

The defendant was accused by information, filed by the district attorney of Ventura County, of the crime of violation of section 2'88 of the Penal Code, entitled crimes against children, a feldny, and from the judgment of conviction defendant appeals.

The sole point raised worthy of consideration by this court is whether or not the trial court erred in permitting the district attorney to amend the information prior to the trial. The amendment was one made to make the information conform to the decision in the case of People v. Grinnel, 9 Cal. App. 238 [ 98 Pac. 681 ], and was amended before trial to charge a public offense in compliance with that decision, and at the time of trial the information did charge a single, definite public offense. The amendment placed upon the charged offense a definite limitation by adding the words “the said act not then and there being an act constituting any crime provided for in part I of the Penal Code.” According to the decision in People v. Grinnel, supra, the information without this amendment would have failed to describe a public offense under said section 288. (See, also, People v. Camp, 42 Cal. App. 411 [ 183 Pac. 845 ].)

Prior to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.