![]() Upon the grounds as alleged, both motions to quash were properly denied. ![]() It would appear from the transcript that the information after being altered or amended as above set forth was not subject to the objection that such interlineations made it impossible to arrive at the meaning of the document. Inasmuch as the county solicitor re-swore to the information before the clerk of the criminal court of record, it appears that the paper was actually in the custody of the court at the time, although it was not re-filed as it should have been, and objection on this ground, having been waived in the court below by failing to mention it in the motion to quash, and afterward pleading to the merits, we deem it unnecessary to go further here than call attention to the defect and omission. ![]() This was a sufficient description under our prior decisions. The information only charged the larceny, or receiving as stolen property, of one automobile - the make, style and value of which, and the name of the owner, were set out. Was any error in the action of the court in overruling these motions. A similar motion to quash was filed by defendant Naya. The motion to quash, filed by the defendants Suarez does not object to the information on this point in fact, the motion alleges that the information was filed on January 4, 1927, and moves to quash it because the same had been mutilated and interlined so as to make it impossible to arrive at its accurate meaning also because the same is indefinite and uncertain and fails to sufficiently describe the property alleged to have been stolen, by failing to give the motor number or license number. But the rather liberal doctrine as to allowance of amendments to informations obtaining in many other states is not recognized in this State where the rules of pleading and practice relative to indictments obtain also as to informations. 823, et seq.), recognized as allowable in other jurisdictions. This change in the information does not appear to fall within any of the classifications of amendments to informations (see 31 C. As to the new defendants, it was a new and original information, and should have been re-filed. This alteration in the information can hardly be called an amendment. 5976, Revised General Statutes, is to the same effect. ![]() Section 28 of Article V of the Constitution provides that "all offenses triable in said court shall be prosecuted upon information under oath, to be filed by the prosecuting attorney," and Sec. ![]() The record, however, does not show that the altered information was re-filed. The third count was left as it originally was, charging Martinez and Naya with being accessories before the fact to such larceny.Īfter the information had been thus altered, it was resigned and re-sworn to on said January 4, 1927, by the county solicitor. The third count charged the larceny of the same automobile on the same date by Valentino Gonzalez, the defendants Angel Martinez and Charles Naya being charged with having been accessories before the fact to such larceny.Ībout six months later, on January 4, 1927, this information was altered without leave of the court by inserting the names of Emelio Suarez and Benigno Suarez in various places in the information so as to charge them, along with the original defendants, with the offenses alleged in each of the three counts of the indictment, with one exception that is, in the third count they are charged jointly with Valentino Gonzalez with the larceny of an automobile, but not as accessories before the fact. The second count charged the same parties with receiving stolen property on the same date, February 20, 1926, describing the same property referred to in the first count and using the same language in making the description. The first count of the information charged the larceny on February 20, 1926, of "one Ford Coupe automobile, the same being a gasoline motor propelled vehicle, a further description of same being to the solicitor unknown, of the value of $500.00 in money current in the United States of America, the property of R. The original information in this case was filed on August 20, 1926, against C. They seek by writ of error to review the judgment of conviction. Plaintiffs in error, Emelio Suarez, Benigno Suarez, and Charles Naya, were convicted in the criminal court of record for Hillsborough county upon an information charging the crimes of larceny and receiving stolen property, and were sentenced to five years imprisonment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |