State v. Bilboa

Citation33 Idaho 128,190 P. 248
PartiesSTATE, Respondent, v. VICENTE BILBOA, Appellant
Decision Date29 May 1920
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

CRIMINAL LAW-DEMURRER TO INFORMATION-FUTURE PROSECUTION-ELECTION.

1. If a demurrer to an information is allowed, the judgment is final and a bar to a future prosecution for the same offense unless the court directs the prosecuting attorney to file another information, or, in case of an indictment, directs the case to be resubmitted to the same or another grand jury but in order that the action of the court in sustaining a demurrer may be a bar to a future prosecution, proof must be submitted that the offense thereafter charged is the same.

2. C S., sec. 8829, does not authorize inclusion in an information of more than one offense, except when the offenses charged relate to the sales of intoxicating liquor.

3. The fact that two offenses are charged in a complaint before a committing magistrate does not deprive the prosecuting attorney of power to file an information charging an offense for which the accused has been held to answer.

4. Where an information charges more than one offense, contrary to the provisions of the statute, a demurrer thereto on the ground of duplicity in the information should be granted.

5. Where an information charges more than one offense, a motion on the part of defendant that the state be required to elect upon which charge it will prosecute should be granted at the opening of the trial, and where the motion is renewed at the close of the state's evidence, it is prejudicial error to deny the same.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Chas. P. McCarthy, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Chas. F. Reddoch and Frawley & Koelsch, for Appellant.

An act, though it violate two or more statutes, can only be punished under one. (State v. Gutke, 25 Idaho 737, 139 P. 346.)

Nor should the state be permitted to divide this one act into three parts and prosecute for each of them. (Hughes v. Commonwealth, 131 Ky. 502, 115 S.W. 744, 31 L. R. A., N. S., 693.)

When a demurrer to an information is allowed, the judgment is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, unless the court directs a new information. (Sec. 7746, Rev. Codes.)

The state should have been required to elect at the close of its testimony. (State v. Gomes, 9 Kan. App. 63, 57 P. 262; State v. Finch, 71 Kan. 793, 81 P. 494; McLaughlin v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 343, 102 P. 713; State v. Poull, 14 N.D. 557, 105 N.W. 717.)

T. A. Walters, Former Attorney General, J. P. Pope, Assistant, R. L. Black, Attorney General, James L. Boone, Assistant, and E. S. Delana, Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.

The trial court has authority, upon the allowance of a demurrer to an information, to direct the prosecuting attorney to file a new information, or to resubmit the case to a committing magistrate for a preliminary hearing. (Secs. 7655, 7658, 7662, 7745, 7746, 4229, Rev. Codes; State v. Braithwaite, 3 Idaho 119, 27 P. 731; State v. Farris, 5 Idaho 666, 51 P. 772; Snyder v. Viola Mining etc. Co., 3 Idaho 28, 26 P. 127; In re Pierce, 8 Idaho 183, 67 P. 316; In re Fowler, 5 Cal.App. 549, 90 P. 958.)

The prosecuting attorney may include in one complaint or one information all of the offenses which defendant has committed against the liquor laws of Idaho. (Sec. 13, chap. 15, 1911 Sess. Laws.)

The district court may, in the exercise of a wise discretion, direct the prosecuting attorney to elect as to the counts or causes of action charging the defendant with more than one offense under the laws relating to intoxicating liquors, such election to be made at any time prior to the pronouncing of judgment by the court. (Sec. 7230, Rev. Codes; State v. Gutke, 25 Idaho 737, 139 P. 346; Andrews v. People, 117 Ill. 195, 7 N.E. 265; Bigeraft v. People, 30 Colo. 298, 70 P. 417; State v. Houx, 109 Mo. 654, 32 Am. St. 686, 19 S.W. 35; Bishop, New Cr. Proc., secs. 454, 425; Kelly v. People, 17 Colo. 130, 29 P. 805; Roberts v. People, 11 Colo. 213, 17 P. 637.)

RICE, J. Morgan, C. J., concurs. Budge, J., sat at the hearing in the above cause but took no part in the opinion.

OPINION

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of transporting intoxicating liquor. On Oct. 2, 1916, an information was filed against him, charging possession and transportation of intoxicating liquor. A demurrer to the information was sustained, and the prosecuting attorney granted ten days in which to file an amended information. After the expiration of the ten-day period, upon application of the prosecuting attorney, the court entered an order directing that the cause be resubmitted to a justice of the peace for the purpose of allowing a new preliminary examination upon matters connected with the charges contained in the information. On Dec. 21, 1916, a new complaint was filed before a committing magistrate, charging appellant with transporting intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, possession of intoxicating liquor, and possession of intoxicating liquor within the state of Idaho. The committing magistrate ordered that appellant be held to answer upon the charges contained in the complaint. On Jan. 29, 1917, the prosecuting attorney filed an information charging appellant with the crimes of transporting intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, of having in his possession intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes and of having in his possession intoxicating liquor. Appellant moved to set aside this information, and also demurred thereto. The motion and demurrer were overruled, and appellant thereupon filed a motion that the state be required to elect upon which of the offenses charged it would prosecute, which motion was denied. At the trial, and before the introduction of any evidence, the appellant renewed his motion to require the state to elect, which motion was denied with leave to renew the same later. The motion was renewed by appellant after the state had rested, which motion the court denied but reserved the right to sustain it when all the evidence had been submitted. No evidence was introduced on the part of appellant, and the court thereupon of its own motion required the state to elect. The first cause of action stated in the information, namely, transportation of intoxicating liquor, was elected by the state.

On Dec. 23, 1916, appellant filed a motion that he be discharged and that his money deposited instead of bail be refunded. The court denied his motion to dismiss and ordered that his bond be exonerated. The ruling of the court in declining to dismiss is assigned as error.

It is urged that the court, having sustained a demurrer to the information, further prosecution was barred because the amended information was not filed within the time given by the court in its order sustaining the demurrer, and the court's subsequent order directing the prosecuting attorney to submit the case for re-examination before a committing magistrate was void.

C. S., sec. 8874, is as follows: "If a demurrer is allowed, the judgment is final upon the indictment demurred to, and is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, unless the court, being of the opinion that the objection on which the demurrer is allowed may be avoided in a new indictment, directs the case to be resubmitted to the same or another grand jury."

It is to be observed that an order sustaining a demurrer to an indictment, or information, bars another prosecution for the same offense. The distinction between "offense," as used in C. S., sec. 8874, and "act" or "omission," as used in C. S., sec. 8602, is discussed in the case of State v. Gutke, 25 Idaho 737, 139 P. 346. It is a sufficient answer to the contention in this case that it does not appear upon the face of the record that the complaint laid before the committing magistrate charged the same offense as the information to which the demurrer had been sustained. Although the charge contained in the complaint appeared to state an offense of the same nature as that contained in the former information, it would have required additional evidence to show that the offense charged was the same, or that it grew out of the same transaction, which evidence was not produced in support of the motion.

Appellant moved to quash the information upon several grounds, all of which are based upon the proposition that the complaint laid before the committing magistrate charged four separate offenses. The motion was properly overruled.

A preliminary examination before a committing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • State v. Elisondo, 17209
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 9, 1988
    ...... State v. Ruddell, 97 Idaho 436, 546 P.2d 391 (1976); State v. Haggard, 94 Idaho 249, 486 P.2d 260 (1971); State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430, 462 P.2d 729 (1969); Freeman v. State, 87 Idaho 170, 392 P.2d 542 (1964); State v. Bilboa, 33 Idaho 128, 190 P. 248 (1920); see also I.C.R. 5.1. As stated in State v. Linn, supra, 93 Idaho at 434, 462 P.2d at 733, "[a] preliminary hearing is in no sense a trial and therefore it does not require the same formality and precision observed at a trial." In California v. Green, supra, ......
  • State v. Mcmahan, 6385
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 16, 1937
    ...is entitled to know what specific act is charged against him as a crime. (State v. Lancaster, supra; State v. Sorenson, supra; State v. Bilboa, supra; State v. Knutson, State v. Coomer, (1933) 105 Vt. 175, 163 A. 585; 16 C. J. 860, 861; State v. Smith, 25 Idaho 541, 138 P. 1107; State v. Lu......
  • Stuart v. State, 17014
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 16, 1990
    ...nor is it required, that the same formality and precision must be in a preliminary examination as is required at trial." State v. Bilboa, 33 Idaho 128, 190 P. 248.' 87 Idaho at 177, 392 P.2d at 546 (emphasis Later in the opinion the Court quoted the Supreme Court of Minnesota for an almost ......
  • State v. Osborn
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 9, 1981
    ...it required, that the same formality and precision must obtain in a preliminary examination as is required upon the trial.' State v. Bilboa, 33 Idaho 128, 190 P. 248." 87 Idaho at 177, 392 P.2d at 546 (emphasis Later in the opinion the Court quoted the Supreme Court of Minnesota for an almo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT