People v. Knox
THE PEOPLE v. ALBERT KNOX
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
GAROUTTE, J.
This appeal is prosecuted by the people to test the validity of an order of the superior court sustaining a demurrer to an information filed against the defendant Knox. This information is based upon section 529 of the Penal Code, which declares that “every person who falsely personates another, and in such assumed character either becomes bail or surety for any party .... is punishable,” etc. By the information in this case the defendant is charged with falsely personating another, in this, that he did “willfully and unlawfully falsely personate another, to wit, an officer of the law and a constable, and in such assumed character did take away one Anita Lynde, a child of the age of four years,” etc. The information further alleged that he was not at the time an officer of the law or constable.
This information is susceptible of but two constructions, either of which renders it objectionable. If the pleading be construed as one charging the defendant as falsely representing himself to *74 be an officér of the law and" a constable, then it must fall, for the section is not broad enough to cover such a state of facts. The section is intended to cover acts done by one person while representing himself to he another and different person. It does not refer to a ease where a party falsely assumes an official character. If the remaining construction of the pleading be adopted, then it is demurrable in not stating the name of the officer of the law or constable which defendant represented himself to he. The defendant is entitled to be notified of that fact. It might be further said that the pleading .is not satisfactory in the eyes of the law from the mere fact that it is susceptible of the widely different constructions suggested.
Judgment affirmed.
Van Fleet, J., and Harrison, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.