People v. Rose, Cr. 20261
| Citation | 28 Cal.App.3d 415,104 Cal.Rptr. 702 |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 20261 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J. D. ROSE, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
Robert G. Eckhoff, Public Defender, Lonnie B. Springer, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Criminal Division, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Appeals Division, James H. Kline, Douglas B. Noble, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
In December 1969 the Santa Barbar County Grand Jury indicted defendant for a murder which, according to the indictment was committed 'between November 6, 1966, and November 24, 1966.' 1 The indictment contains no allegations which, if true, would permit the tolling of any applicable statute of limitations. After evidence was presented to a jury the court instructed on murder and voluntary manslaughter. Defendant was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to state prison, the sentence to run concurrently with that imposed in another case.
Neither in the court below nor in the briefs initially filed with us is there a hint that anyone appreciated the manifest problem of a manslaughter conviction upon an indictment presented more than three years after the homicide. (Pen.Code § 800.) 2 As will be noted this may not be due to oversight. After reviewing the record filed with us we requested counsel to inspect the superior court record and invited a motion to augment in case it contains something with reference to the statute of limitations. We are advised by the People that they can find nothing except an indication that defendant was arrested in New York, but no hint how long he had been there.
It has been the law of this state ever since People v. Miller, 12 Cal. 291, that on an indictment for murder--which crime is, or course, not governed by any statutory period--filed more than three years after the homicide, there can be no conviction for the lesser included offense of manslaughter unless the accusatory pleading shows some bar to the application of the statute of limitations. None having been alleged here, the conviction is jurisdictionally defective and must be reversed. (People v. McGee, 1 Cal.2d 611, 613, 36 P.2d 378.) 3 This holding is compelled not only by the law of this state but by the overwhelming weight of authorities. (See also People v. Picetti, 124 Cal. 361, 57 P. 156; see generally Annot.47 A.L.R.2d p. 887.)
We fully appreciate that the state of the record may be the result of defense strategy pointed at preventing the jury from having to choose between murder and acquittal. It may also be that the prosecution silently went along with the defense ploy. We cannot, however, affirm a jurisdictionally defective conviction on the basis of speculation.
We also appreciate that the problem of the statute was not raised on appeal, which was briefed by trial counsel. This failure is harder to justify on any tactical basis, since--whatever the outcome of the appeal--defendant has now been impliedly acquitted of murder. (Gomez v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.2d 640, 328 P.2d 976.) Under applicable Sixth Amendment principles (In re Smith, 3 Cal.3d 192, 90 Cal.Rptr. 1, 474 P.2d 969), we had no alternative but to raise the issue on our own motion. (People v. Malich, 15 Cal.App.3d 253, 264, fn. 2, 93 Cal.Rptr. 87.)
The prosecution should, of course, be permitted to amend the accusatory pleading if it can. (See Pen.Code § 1009; In re McCartney, 64 Cal.2d 830, 832, 51 Cal.Rptr. 894, 415 P.2d 782.) 4
The judgment is reversed.
1 The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Witt
...if the prosecution can remedy the defect. (See above Penal Code citations; as to a judgment on appeal, see People v. Rose (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 415, 418, 104 Cal.Rptr. 702.) From what has been said, it follows that since appellants did not demur to the information but raised the limitations ......
-
People v. Vallerga
...face that prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations fails to state a public offense. (Citation.)' (See People v. Rose, 28 Cal.App.3d 415, 417, 104 Cal.Rptr. 702.) Where, as in this case, a charged offense includes a lesser but necessarily included offense which is barred by the st......
-
Cowan v. Superior Court
...121 Cal.Rptr. 725, 535 P.2d 1181; People v. Chadd, supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 757, 170 Cal.Rptr. 798, 621 P.2d 837; People v. Rose (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 415, 417, 104 Cal.Rptr. 702.) In McGee, we described the issue as "[w]hether the statute of limitations in criminal cases is jurisdictional, or......
-
Hagans v. State
...though the statute has not run on the greater offense. See, e.g., Padie v. State, 557 P.2d 1138 (Alaska 1976); People v. Rose, 28 Cal.App.3d 415, 104 Cal.Rptr. 702 (1972); Comment, supra, 57 Nw.L.Rev. at 66; Note, supra, 15 Washburn L.J. at 54. 10 Although the lesser included offense doctri......