Case ID: cal_67/html/0099-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20050.
    In Bank.
    May 30, 1885.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CHARLES CLARK, Appellant.
    Crounal Law—Once in Jeotakdy—Conviction undeb Insufficient Infobma-1 tion. —An erroneous conviction under an information which failed to charge the defendant with the commission of any crime will not support a plea of former conviction or once in jeopardy.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of. Santa Clara County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
    The defendant was convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree. In support of his pleas of former conviction and once in jeopardy the defendant proved that under a former information for the same offense he had pleaded guilty, that his plea had been accepted, and that after taking testimony to determine the degree a verdict of guilty of burglary in the second degree was entered. Afterwards the district attorney dismissed the information. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      
      Z. N. Goldsby, and J. M. Lesser, for Appellant.
    
      Attorney-General Marshall, and James A. Hall, for Respondent.
   The Court.

The defendant pleaded not guilty as charged in the information; that he- had been previously convicted of the same offense, and also once in jeopardy. The jury found, upon the plea of not guilty, the defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree, and on the other pleas found in favor of the people. Inasmuch as the former information failed to charge the defendant with the commission of any crime, the court below was justified in instructing the jury that the pleas of former conviction and once in jeopardy could not be sustained. The evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict of guilty of burglary in the second degree.

Judgment and order affirmed.