TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Taggart

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. JOHN W. TAGGART

People v. Taggart, 43 Cal. 81 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1872
Docket
No. 3,140
Judges
Rhodes
Citations
43 Cal. 81
Headnotes
Two Offenses in Same Indictment.—Burglary and breaking and entering a dwelling house, in the day-time, are intended by the law (Act of 1858 concerning crimes, and the Act of February 27th, 1864,) to be two distinct offenses, and they cannot be made to constitute one and the same offense by means of an averment in an indictment to that effect. A Demurrer to an Indictment, on the ground that it charges two offenses, is permitted by Section 289 of the Criminal Practice Act.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court of Sonoma County. The Grand Jury found the following indictment against the defendant: “John W. Taggart is accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Sonoma, State of California, by this indictment found the™ 3d day of October, A. I). 1871, of the crime' of burglary, committed as follows: The said John W. Taggart, on the 13th day of July, A. D. 1871, at the county and State aforesaid, at about the hour of nine o’clock in the night-time of said day, with force and arms the house and tenement of "William Withrow, then and there situate, feloniously and burglariously did break and enter with an intent then and in said house and tenement to commit petit larceny—that is to say, with intent to steal, take, and carry away one claw-hammer, worth one dollar; one spokeshave, worth seventy-five cents; one two-foot rule, worth fifty cents; and one monkey-wrench, worth one dollar, of the goods and chattels of William Withrow and John Charlton. And by way of setting out the above burglarious entrance in a different count and in a different form, the said Grand Jury further accuses the said John W. Taggart of entering said house, in the day-time, with intent to steal, committed as follows: The said John W. Taggart, in the said County of Sonoma, on the said 13th day of July, 1871, at about the hour of six o’clock p. m., and in the day-time of said day, the shop and building of William Withrow willfully and maliciously did enter, with intent to commit petit larceny therein—that is to say, with intent to steal, take, and carry away one claw-hammer, worth one dollar; one spokeshave, worth seventy-five cents; one two-foot rule, worth fifty cents; and one monkey-wrench, worth one dollar, of the goods and chattels of William Withrow and John Charlton. And the Grand Jury further say that the two foregoing counts in this indictment are descriptive of one and the same transaction, contrary to the form, force, and effect of the statute,” etc. The defendant demurred to the indictment, the demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff' appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rhodes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

*83 By the Court, Rhodes, J.:

The first count in the indictment charges the defendant with the commission of the crime of burglary, as defined by Section 58 of the Act concerning crimes and punishments, as amended in 1858. The second count charges him with the commission of the crime of breaking and entering a dwelling house, etc., in the day-time, with the intent to steal, as defined in the Act of February 27th, 1864 (Stats. 1868-4, p. 104). Those are, and are intended by the law to be, distinct offenses, and they cannot be made to constitute one and the same offense by means of an averment in the indictment to that effect.

The defendant demurred to the indictment on the- ground that it charges two offenses, and the demurrer was sustained. The defendant is permitted, by Section 289 of the Criminal Practice Act, to demur to the indictment on that ground, and there being two offenses charged, the demurrer was properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1966: 12022: 119662026peak 1966 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Henson513 P.3d 947 (Cal. 2022)
  2. People v. Taylor247 Cal. App. 2d 11 (1966)

Most recent

  1. People v. Henson513 P.3d 947 (Cal. 2022)
  2. People v. Taylor247 Cal. App. 2d 11 (1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list