TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Fahey

THE PEOPLE v. WILLIAM FAHEY

People v. Fahey, 30 P. 1030 (Cal. 1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 26, 1883
Judges
McKee
Citations
30 P. 103064 Cal. 3421883 Cal. LEXIS 639
Headnotes
Criminal Law — Assault—Jurisdiction.—The defendant was charged with having committed an assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury. The lower court sustained a demurrer on the ground that it had no jurisdiction of the offense charged. Reid, error.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

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

Opinion of the Court — McKee

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

McKee, J.

To an information charging the defendant with having committed the crime of “ an assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, to wit: With a brick-bat weighing

about five pounds ” a demurrer was filed upon the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction of the offense charged, and that the complaint did not conform to the requirements of sections 950, 951, 952 of the Penal Code, and the court sustained the demurrer on the ground that it had no jurisdiction of the offense charged.

This was error. Section 245 of the Penal Code provides that “ every person who commits an assault upon the person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument, or by any means or force likely to produce great bodily injury, is punishable by imprisonment in the State prison, or in a county jail not exceeding two years, or by fine not exceeding five thousand- dollars, or by both.” The offense charged was therefore a felony of which the court had jurisdiction (§ 5, art. vi., Const.), and the fact that the offense charged included within it a lesser offense, of which the defendant might be convicted, or that the court in the exercise of its discretion, could inflict punishment within the limits prescribed by law upon any conviction which might be rendered in the case, in no way affected the jurisdiction of the court to try and determine it.

*343 Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings with direction to overrule the demurrer.

Ross, J., Myrick, J., McKinstry, J., Sharpstein, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1927: 119272026peak 1927 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Freeman260 P. 826 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)

Most recent

  1. People v. Freeman260 P. 826 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)

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