Source: https://www.michaelrehm.com/people-v-saffell-74-cal-app-2d-supp-967-1946
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:36:26+00:00

Document:
MELVIN T. SAFFELL et al., Respondents.
Ray L. Chesebro, City Attorney, Donald M. Redwine, Assistant City Attorney, and John L. Bland, Deputy City Attorney, for Appellant.
W. B. Esterman, Katz, Gallagher & Margolis and John W. Porter for Respondents.
“Failure to make the objections above mentioned by demurrer when they appear upon the face of the complaint, shall constitute a waiver thereof, except that after a plea of guilty or a verdict or finding of guilty the objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or objection that the facts stated do not constitute a public offense, may be taken on a motion in arrest of judgment.” The permissible grounds of demurrer here set forth are substantially the same as those allowed in the superior court by section 1004, and they appear to have been borrowed from that section, except that the charging of more than one offense is not made a ground of demurrer, as it is in the superior court. Obviously the general scope of the demurrer so authorized is, aside from the joinder of offenses, the same as that of a demurrer in the superior court in a criminal action. It is settled that the only grounds of demurrer allowed are those specifically named in the statute. (People v. Schmidt (1883), 64 Cal. 260, 261 [30 P. 814]; People v. Tibbitts (1925), 71 Cal.App. 709, 712 [236 P. 217]; People v. McAllister (1929), 99 Cal.App. 37, 44 [277 P. 1082].) It is to be noted that uncertainty is not made a ground of demurrer by section 1428.1, except insofar as it constitutes a failure to conform to section 1426.
 Looking now at the new part of the section, we note the provision that the statement that the accused has committed a public offense “may be in the words of the enactment describing the offense or declaring the matter to be a public offense” etc. When this same provision was put in section 952 it was [74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 974] undoubtedly intended to reverse a rule previously declared by the courts on this point. While recognizing the rule that in general it is sufficient to charge an offense in the language of the statute defining it (14 Cal.Jur. 49-50), the courts had also held that where the words used in the statute have no technical meaning, or where the particular facts or acts which constitute the offense are not specified, it is necessary to set forth the acts constituting the offense. (People v. Mahony (1904), 145 Cal. 104, 106 [78 P. 354]; People v. Perales (1904), 141 Cal. 581, 583 [75 P. 170]; People v. Neil (1891), 91 Cal. 465, 467 [27 P. 760]; People v. McKenna (1889), 81 Cal. 158, 160 [22 P. 488]; People v. Butler (1917), 35 Cal.App. 357, 362 [169 P. 918], 14 Cal.Jur. 49-50.) Since the general rule of following the statutory definition was thus recognized except in the one class of cases, without any statutory provision to that effect, the purpose of enacting the rule into statute without any exception must have been to abolish the exception and let the rule stand in complete generality, and section 952 is so construed. (People v. Pierce, supra, (1939), 14 Cal.2d 639, 644; People v. Mitchell (1940), 40 Cal.App.2d 204, 210 [104 P.2d 545].) In People v. Steel (1939), 35 Cal.App.2d Supp. 748, 751 [92 P.2d 815], and People v. Smith (1939), 36 Cal.App.2d Supp. 748, 753 [92 P.2d 1039], it is held that under the provisions of section 1426 as they now stand a complaint in the words of the statute is sufficient, and in the Smith case it is further held that the provisions of section 1426 to that effect are valid.  But the scope of this part of the enactment is limited to this purpose, as, indeed, plainly appears from its words; that is, it covers only the matter of describing the offense, or in the words of the old part of section 1426, it goes only to “the character of the offense.” It does prescribe quite definitely what allegations in that respect shall be sufficient, and thus it must be regarded as limiting the effect of the first, or old, part of the section so that the defendant cannot demand under it any further particulars “to enable him to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of” than are declared sufficient by the last, or new, part thereof.  But under the first (the old) part of the section the complaint is still required to set forth “such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant … to answer the complaint.” If it fails to do so, the complaint is subject to demurrer under the second subdivision of section 1428.1, and [74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 975] no doubt such demurrer may reach any uncertainty in any of these matters which would prevent the defendant from answering; but we see in the section no authorization for objecting by demurrer to any other uncertainty, where the offense is described in the manner sanctioned by the last, or new, part of section 1426.
No doubt in many a complaint describing the character of the offense in the manner above mentioned some of the facts which must be proved to support it will be set forth only by way of conclusion, either of law or fact. Numerous cases may be found holding that conclusions of law are insufficient in an indictment or information; that the facts must be stated. (See People v. Mahony, supra, (1904), 145 Cal. 104, 108; People v. Neil, supra, (1891), 91 Cal. 465, 468; People v. McKenna (1889), 81 Cal. 158, 159; People v. Butler, supra, (1917), 35 Cal.App. 357, 367.) But these cases were decided before the Penal Code amendments of 1927 and 1929 to which we have referred, and are superseded by them. The allegation expressly permitted by sections 1426 and 952 as a charge of theft is manifestly a mere conclusion of law, especially when applied to a case of embezzlement or obtaining money by false pretenses, both of which are now, by the terms of section 484, included in theft. In the cases last mentioned a great many facts which must be proved are wrapped up in the mere conclusion of law that the taking was unlawful. Under former rules of criminal pleading such an allegation would have been held insufficient as a description of the character of the offense (see for an instance, People v. McKenna, supra, (1889), 81 Cal. 158, 160), but now by force of the statute so providing it is held sufficient. (People v. Fewkes (1931), 214 Cal. 142, 149 [4 P.2d 538]; People v. Dunn (1940), 40 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [104 P.2d 119], certiorari denied (1940), 311 U.S. 701 [61 S.Ct. 139,85 L.Ed. 454]; People v. Robinson (1930), 107 Cal.App. 211, 218 [290 P. 470]; People v. Wickersham (1929), 98 Cal.App. 502, 505 [277 P.121]; People v. Plum (1928), 88 Cal.App. 575, 582, 587 [263 P. 862, 265 P. 322].) Likewise, in charging the very grave offense of murder, section 951, Penal Code, as amended in 1927, permits the essence of the charge to be embodied in the one word “murdered,” which is a mere legal conclusion, and this allegation has been held sufficient. (People v. Magsaysay (1930), 210 Cal. 301 [291 P. 582]; People v. Coen (1928), 205 Cal. 596, 603 [271 P. 1074].) The Legislature, having thus confronted and expressly [74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 976] legalized conclusions of law in regard to murder and theft, cannot be thought to have stopped short of doing the same thing when it authorized the use of the words of the statute, etc. without any qualification or exception of cases where the authorized words state a conclusion of law.
Some of the cases which uphold indictments and informations in the form now prescribed by section 952 comment, in doing so, upon the fact that the defendant must, under other provisions of the code, be given a copy of the transcript of the evidence before the grand jury or at the preliminary examination preceding the information, as the case may be, and say that he can obtain from that the details which are omitted from the pleading. (See People v. Pierce supra, (1939), 14 Cal.2d 639, 646; People v. Mitchell, supra, (1940), 40 Cal.App.2d 204, 210; People v. Curtis (1939), 36 Cal.App.2d 306, 317 [98 P.2d 228]; People v. Humphrey (1938), 27 Cal.App.2d 631, 638 [81 P.2d 588]; People v. Gilbert (1938), 26 Cal.App.2d 1, 8 [78 P.2d 770]; People v. Yant (1938), 26 Cal.App.2d 725, 730 [80 P.2d 506]; People v. Beesly, supra, (1931), 119 Cal.App. 82, 85; People v. Plum, supra (1928), 88 Cal.App. 575, 587.) In the courts to which section 1426 is applicable there is, as defendants point out, no corresponding procedure. The first and only official information a defendant there receives before trial of the charge against him is the complaint. Due process of law requires that this information be adequate to enable him to answer the charge, and the Legislature could not by statute authorize a form of complaint which was lacking in this respect. However, it has not purported to do so, for section 1426 still contains the provision requiring, in those matters which would serve to identify the charge, such particulars as to enable the defendant to answer the complaint. None of the cases just cited declares that the statutory form of pleading would be bad even if the defendant received no transcript of the testimony. In other cases the present statutes and the forms sanctioned by them have been upheld as constituting due process of law, without any reference to the provision for delivering a reporter's transcript to the defendant. (People v. Covington (1934), 1 Cal.2d 316, 319-320 [34 P.2d 1019]; People v. Dunn, supra, (1940), 40 Cal.App.2d 6, 12-13, in which certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in (1940), 311 U.S. 701 [61 S.Ct. 139, 85 L.Ed 454]; People v. Wiezel (1940), 39 Cal.App.2d 657, 665 [104 P.2d 70]; People v. O'Neal (1934), 2 Cal.App.2d 551, 557 [38 P.2d 430]; People v. Robinson, supra, (1930). 107 [74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 977] Cal.App. 211, 217-8; People v. Berg (1929), 96 Cal.App. 430, 433 [274 P. 433].) “Due process of law,” said the United States Supreme Court, in Garland v. Washington (1914), 232 U.S. 642, 645 [34 S.Ct. 456, 58 L.Ed. 772, 775], “does not require the state to adopt any particular form of procedure, so long as it appears that the accused has had sufficient notice of the accusation and an adequate opportunity to defend himself in the prosecution.” As the court said in People v. Covington, supra, “The state has the right to establish forms of pleading to be observed in its own courts, subject only to the provisions of the federal Constitution involving the protection of life, liberty and property in all the states”–a statement which was also made in People v. Robinson, supra. An analogous question was answered in People v. Nolan, (1904), 144 Cal. 75, 80 [77 P. 774], where it was held that the provisions of section 971, Penal Code, that an indictment or information may charge an accessory before the fact in the same words used to charge the principal, without more, do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but provide sufficient notice to the defendant of the accusation against him and constitute due process of law.
 Plaintiff also contends, and we agree, that where contempt of court is charged as a crime, under section 166 of the Penal Code, section 31 of that code is applicable, and one who is not otherwise subject to the injunction or restraining order may be charged as a principal, if he aids and abets in its violation. Of course, this involves, as a matter of proof, knowledge by the person so charged of the order he is accused of violating, for without such knowledge he could not be an abettor (7 Cal.Jur. 889); but it does not require any further allegation in the pleading than would be necessary against the principal.
 Defendants argue, in support of the demurrer, that the complaint is bad because it does not allege that they had knowledge of the order. Plaintiff in its brief declines to discuss this point or any point other than those raised by the trial court, on the ground that they are not raised by the demurrer, pointing to the provision of section 1428.2, Penal Code, that “the demurrer … must set forth with particularity the reasons why the complaint is insufficient or it may be disregarded.” It has been held that in the superior courts, where there is a like provision (Pen. Code, 1005), the demurrer must be specific in stating objections. (People v. Bradbury (1909), 155 Cal. 808, 813 [103 P. 215].) But this rule does not avert inquiry into the point just stated, for the demurrer does specify that it cannot be ascertained from the complaint how the defendants or any of them “received knowledge of, or knew of the existence of” something not clearly described but obviously meant to be the order in question. This we regard as sufficient particularity.
[16a] The answer to this argument of defendant follows from the foregoing discussion. The essence of the charge here is that the defendants “did wilfully and unlawfully and knowingly … disobey a lawful order of the Superior Court.” This includes substantially the words of the statute, although it substitutes “lawful order” for the statutory phrase “order lawfully issued.” This charge includes such knowledge on defendants' part as is necessary to hold them in contempt. The words “wilfully and unlawfully” alone are sufficient for that purpose. (People v. Odom (1937), 19 Cal.App.2d 641, 646 [66 P.2d 206]); in addition to which the [74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 981] complaint here alleges that the defendants “knowingly” disobeyed the order. This word also gives the defendants notice of the offense charged, and satisfies section 1426, as far as the matter of knowledge is concerned.
 Defendants further contend that the complaint must fall because it does not allege what acts they did by way of disobeying the restraining order. This objection also is set forth with particularity in the demurrer. But we find nothing in section 1426 which requires such an allegation. The acts enjoined by the restraining order are such that the mere statement that it was disobeyed, meaning, of course, that some or all of the forbidden acts were done, is sufficient to inform the defendants of the nature of the charge and enable them to answer. To violate the restraining order defendants must have obstructed ingress or egress to or from the places of business of the plaintiff in the action by walking, marching or standing. Further certainty would not be required by section 1426, and the lack of it would, therefore, not be a ground of demurrer. The allegation here resembles that passed on in In re Winston (1911), 160 Cal. 18, 21 [16 P. 390], where the court held that a complaint charging battery, which merely alleged that the defendant “did unlawfully and wilfully use force and violence upon the person of the affiant,” without stating the particular acts of force and violence, “certainly discloses the character of the offense charged.” We find particularly applicable here this statement applied by the Supreme Court to a murder charge, in People v. King (1865), 27 Cal. 507, 510 [87 Am.Dec. 95], “If the defendant is guilty, he stands in need of no information to be derived from a perusal of the indictment, as to the means used by him in committing the act or the manner in which it was done, for as to both his own knowledge is quite as reliable as any statements contained in the indictment. If he is not guilty, the information could not aid in the preparation of his defense.” This language was quoted with approval in People v. Hong Ah Duck (1882), 61 Cal. 387, 389; People v. Dunn, supra, (1940), 40 Cal.App.2d 6, 13; People v. Beesly, supra, (1931), 119 Cal.App. 82, 85; People v. Plum, supra, (1928), 88 Cal.App. 575, 586; and People v. Malley (1920), 49 Cal.App. 597, 604 [194 P. 48]. It was approved without exact quotation in People v. Cronin, (1867), 34 Cal. 191, 200, and the approval in the Cronin case was quoted approvingly [74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 982] in People v. Welton, supra, (1922), 190 Cal. 236, 239; and People v. Evanoff (1919), 45 Cal.App. 108, 114 [187 P. 54].
Under this rule, an order such as we have in clause 4 could be properly made. The record on which the order was made is not before us, so we cannot now ascertain the fact of this matter. [16b] But the complaint alleges that the [74 Cal.App.2d Supp. 984] order was “a lawful order.” This, while not in the exact words of section 166, Penal Code, which refers to an order “lawfully issued, ” is so near to these words as to be substantially an allegation “in the words of the enactment” (Pen. Code, 1426); and hence, under the rules of pleading already discussed, it imports that the order was made on such a state of facts as would render it lawful.
 Furthermore, the part of the order designated as “5.” is unquestionably valid. Its purpose is merely to preserve for plaintiff and its visitors the right of ingress and egress to and from its premises, and no constitutional provision stands in the way of such an order. The complaint alleging a wilful disobedience of this part of the order states a public offense of which defendants can be convicted on sufficient evidence, even though clause 4 may eventually appear to be invalid.
The judgment is reversed with directions to the municipal court to overrule the demurrer to Count II of the complaint and permit the defendants to plead to it.
Bishop, J., and Kincaid, J., concurred.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.