Court Opinion

ID: 9719574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:56:22.35713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.275741
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
By petition for rehearing defendant asserts confusion as to whether the prosecution must prové when the crime was discovered, and, if so, whether such proof must be made at the preliminary hearing. His confusion is engendered by a failure to appreciate the issue posed at this stage of the proceedings. As pointed out in the opinion, the answer to both questions is in the affirmative. The proof, however, insofar as it indicates ..defendant’s status as an embezzling employee sustains the implied finding of the magistrate that the crime was not discovered until after April 8, 1970, or in October 1972.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 16, 1975.