Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOHN MILLER, Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1917-09-17
Citations: 34 Cal. App. 641
Docket Number: Crim. No. 688
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOHN MILLER, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 34
Pages: 641–641

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 688.
First Appellate District.
September 17, 1917.]
THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. JOHN MILLER, Appellant.
Criminal Law—Amended Information—Lack of Prejudice.—In a criminal action the filing of an amended information is not prejudicial to the defendant, nor in contravention of the provisions of section 1008 of the Penal Code, where the original information purported to charge a public offense and the amended information did not charge an offense different from that attempted to be stated in the original information.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order denying a new trial. H. Z. Austin, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Henry Brieldey, and Frank A. Curtin, for Appellant.
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John H. Riordan, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
It is only necessary to say in this case that the original information purported to charge a public offense, and that the amended information as filed, after the request of the district attorney and upon the permission of the court being given, did not charge an offense different from that attempted to be stated in the original information. Consequently the filing of the amended complaint neither prejudiced the defendant nor contravened the provisions of section 1008 of the Penal Code. (See People v. Rippe, 32 Cal. App. 514, [163 Pac. 506].)
The record does not sustain the contention of counsel for the defendant that the trial court refused to permit him to show upon cross-examination of the complaining witness that the latter was so drunk on the night of the assault with which the defendant is charged as not to be able to identify the defendant as one of the persons who assaulted him. That is all we think need be said as to that assignment of error.
No other point in the case requires discussion, and we are satisfied that the evidence sustains the verdict and judgment. The judgment and order denying defendant's motion for a new trial are affirmed.