Husband

Husband v. Superior Court

Caution
128 Cal. App. 444·17 P.2d 764
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 28, 1932Docket Nos. 8642, 8643.California1,426 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Works, J.

These two proceedings present an identical question of law and they may therefore be treated in a single opinion.

Certain indictments were found by the grand jury against petitioner. During the taking of testimony at hearings before that body, which resulted in the indictments, there was present the county grand jury auditor, an officer appointed pursuant to the provisions of section 928 of the Penal Code. It is contended by petitioner that the presence of that functionary in the grand jury room invalidates the indictments and that therefore respondent court has no jurisdiction to try petitioner under them. Respondent insists that the auditor was properly present at the sessions, but we think he was not. Section 925 of the Penal Code is partially to the effect that “No person other than those specified in this and the succeeding section [italics ours] is permitted to be present during the session of the grand jury except the members and witnesses actually under examination.” The section also designates persons who may be present in addition to the members of the jury and the witnesses, but the auditor is not among them. Neither section 926 nor 927 of the code contains matter…

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.