Case ID: cal_175/html/0661-01.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

[Crim. No. 2103.
    In Bank.
    August 1, 1917.]
    In re MAURY JACOBS on Habeas Corpus.
    Habeas 'Corpus—Insuppiciency op Evidence—Review.—The insufficiency of the evidence to warrant a conviction cannot be considered on habeas corpus.
    
    Id.—Commitment Without Probable Cause — Discharge — Applicability op Code Provision.—Subdivision 7 of section 1487 of the Penal Code, authorizing a discharge on habeas corpus where a party has been committed on a “criminal charge without reasonable or probable cause, is applicable only where a person has been committed for trial by a magistrate without reasonable or probable cause.
    
      Id.—Petit Larceny— Sufficiency of Complaint.—Where a complaint in the police court sufficiently stated fact's constituting the oflense of petit larceny, the words “by trick and device” do not impair it's sufficiency.
    Id.—Insufficiency of Evidence—Remedy by Appeal.—In a prosecution for petit larceny, if the evidence is not sufficient to show the guilt of the defendant, the remedy is by appeal, and not by habeas corpus.
    
    APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Henry B. Lister, for Petitioner.
   THE COURT.

No good cause for the issuance of a writ

appears. The question of insufficiency of evidence to warrant conviction cannot be considered on habeas corpus. Subdivision 7 of section 1487 of the Penal Code, authorizing a discharge on habeas corpus “where a party has been committed on a criminal charge without reasonable or probable cause, ’ ’ is applicable only where, a person has been committed for trial by a magistrate without reasonable or probable cause. The complaint in the police court sufficiently stated facts constituting the offense of petit larceny (Pen. Code, secs. 484 and 488). The words “by trick and device” do not impair their effect in this regard. The judgment shows a conviction of the crime of petit larceny. If the evidence adduced on the trial was not sufficient to show the guilt of the prisoner of that charge, his remedy was by appeal.

The application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.