Ex parte Cahill

Good Law
52 Cal. 463
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1877No. 10,314California359 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

argued that the Court to which the depositions were returned after an examination, must inquire into the alleged offense through the first Grand Jury; and that if such Grand Jury returned the depositions to the Court dismissing the charge, it could not be referred to another Grand Jury, and cited Penal Code, sec. 941; and that a Justice of the Peace could not afterward order the arrest of the defendant. They also argued that an examination of a defendant on a criminal charge was not a prosecution in the sense in which the word was used in the Penal Code in secs. 682 and 888.

Jo Hamilton, J. Hosmer, and W. L. Hopkins, for the People.

1. The order of dismissal of the charge made in the County Court did not operate a bar to another prosecution for the •same offense, and would not have so operated, even if the case had not been subsequently resubmitted by that Court to the Grand Jury, for the offense with which the prisoner is charged is not a mere misdemeanor, but a felony. (Penal Code, sec. 1387.)

2. lío bar to another prosecution having occurred, and the prisoner being at large without bail in consequence of the order of the County Court discharging him from custody, it was…

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.