From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Suprerior Court

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Jun 13, 1921
53 Cal.App. 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)

Summary

In People v. Superior Court (1921) 53 Cal.App. 185 [ 199 P. 840] it was said that a judge of the court in which an action is pending "has jurisdiction to dismiss the action for any reason that [he] determines to be in furtherance of justice."

Summary of this case from People v. Curtiss

Opinion

Civ. No. 3667.

June 13, 1921.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and Frederick W. Houser, Judge thereof, from dismissing a certain criminal action. Denied.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Thomas Lee Woolwine, District Attorney, for Petitioner.


Petitioners have applied for a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent court from dismissing a certain criminal action.

[1] It appears from the petition that in response to a motion of the defendants in that action, the superior court, acting through the judge named in the petition herein, has ordered that the district attorney furnish each of the defendants with a bill of particulars covering certain matters described in the motion. The court granted the motion, and further stated that unless the bill of particulars is furnished the court will dismiss the action. The district attorney has declined to comply with the order.

The question whether or not, in a criminal action, the court may require the people to furnish a bill of particulars apparently has not been passed upon in this state, except that in People v. Alviso, 55 Cal. 230, the supreme court stated that the furnishing of such bill of particulars is not required by any section of the Penal Code "and we do not call to mind any rule of law requiring the same to be done." For authorities generally covering this subject, see Annotated Cases 1913A, 1207.

It is not necessary to pass upon the question above stated, and we express no opinion thereon. We think that respondent has jurisdiction to dismiss the action for any reason that it determines to be in furtherance of justice. (Pen. Code, sec. 1385; People v. More, 71 Cal. 546, [12 P. 631].) For this reason the petition is denied.


Summaries of

People v. Suprerior Court

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Jun 13, 1921
53 Cal.App. 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)

In People v. Superior Court (1921) 53 Cal.App. 185 [ 199 P. 840] it was said that a judge of the court in which an action is pending "has jurisdiction to dismiss the action for any reason that [he] determines to be in furtherance of justice."

Summary of this case from People v. Curtiss
Case details for

People v. Suprerior Court

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One

Date published: Jun 13, 1921

Citations

53 Cal.App. 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
199 P. 840

Citing Cases

State v. Bosch

This court in State v. Gondeiro, supra, erroneously stated: 'The granting or refusal of it [a bill of…

People v. Sidener

The broad scope of the judicial power in this area of its jurisdiction, although sometimes attacked by…