People v. Girr

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

10,370

Attorney(S)

Welch & Britts, for Appellant. Attorney-General Hamilton, for Respondents.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape following an indictment alleging that he "did willfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought commit an assault upon the person of Caroline Waldfogal, with intent her, the said Caroline Waldfogal, then and there to rape." The defendant appealed both the judgment of conviction and an order denying a new trial. The indictment's sufficiency was challenged by a demurrer, which was overruled.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the indictment sufficiently described the offense of assault with intent to commit rape under the Penal Code, section 220.
Whether the indictment's language, differing somewhat from the statutory wording, was adequate to charge a public offense.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
People v. Shaber, 32 Cal. 36	An indictment is sufficient if it describes the offense in the language of the statute.	Supported the sufficiency of the indictment despite variation in wording.
People v. White, 34 Cal. 183	Same principle that statutory language or its equivalent suffices for indictment.	Reinforced the court's view that the indictment's wording was adequate.
People v. Potter, 34 Cal. 114	It is not necessary to follow the statute's exact language so long as the indictment conveys the same meaning.	Established that the indictment's wording, while not verbatim, was legally sufficient.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the indictment's language in light of Penal Code section 220, which criminalizes assault with intent to commit rape but does not precisely define the offense's description. The court noted established precedents holding that an indictment is sufficient if it describes the offense using the statute's language or equivalent wording. Applying this principle, the court found that the indictment's phrasing, though not identical, conveyed the same meaning as the statute. Consequently, the indictment was deemed legally sufficient to state a public offense, and the demurrer was properly overruled.

Holding and Implications

Judgment and order affirmed.

The court's decision upheld the conviction and denial of a new trial, confirming that the indictment met legal standards for sufficiency. This decision directly affects the parties by affirming the lower court's rulings. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing principles regarding indictment sufficiency.

Show full summary ...

THE PEOPLE v. JACOB GIRR

OPINION

THE COURT

The indictment states that the defendant " did willfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought commit an assault upon the person of Caroline Waldfogal, with intent her, the said Caroline Waldfogal, then and there to rape." The demurrer, on the ground, among others, that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a public offense, was overruled.

The Penal Code, sec. 220, provides that " every person who assaults another, with intent to commit rape," is punishable as therein provided. But the offense is not particularly described.

It has repeatedly been held that an indictment is sufficient if it describe the offense charged in the language of the statute. (See People v. Shaber , 32 Cal. 36; People v. White , 34 Cal. 183; People v. Potter , 34 Cal. 114.) It would have been sufficient, according to the authority of those cases, to have described the intent in the language of the statute--that is to say, to have alleged the felonious assault, " with the intent then and there upon the person of the said Caroline Waldfogal to commit a rape." In People v. Potter, supra, it is said that it is not necessary to follow strictly the language of the statute by which the offense is described, but that words conveying the same meaning may be used. The words employed in the indictment convey the same meaning as the words of the statute, and therefore the indictment is, in that respect, sufficient.

Judgment and order affirmed.