People v. Mitchell
40 Cal.App.2d 204, 104 P.2d 545, 1940 Cal. App. LEXIS 93 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An information charging assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury is sufficient if pleaded in the words of the statute, as amendments to Penal Code section 952 allow for simplified pleading and an accused is protected by access to trial transcripts. Additionally, multiple blows delivered within a single, continuous transaction constitute only one assault for double jeopardy purposes.
Facts:
- J. E. Mitchell, a 47-year-old, 6-foot-5, 240-pound former professional heavyweight prize fighter and city council member, arrived at the Bridge Cafe in Salinas with Miss Whitaker and Mr. and Mrs. Ed Storm.
- Lynn Dayhuff, a 43-year-old, 160-pound man, arrived at the cafe with his wife and others to celebrate a birthday, and members of his party showed signs of drinking.
- Mitchell and Storm made a remark to Mrs. Dayhuff that she considered insulting, leading to an initial confrontation on the dance floor where Mitchell apologized to Dayhuff.
- Shortly thereafter, Dayhuff and his party approached Mitchell's table, leading to pushing and a general melee between Dayhuff and Storm, during which Dayhuff claimed Mitchell hit him on the forehead.
- Mr. Jeffery, a former wrestler, intervened, held Dayhuff's arms behind him, and walked him onto the porch of the cafe to calm him.
- While Dayhuff was being held by Jeffery on the porch with his back to the cafe door, Mitchell re-entered the barroom, seized two beer bottles, returned to the porch, and, reaching over others, hit Dayhuff on the side of the head with one bottle, causing a serious laceration.
- Mitchell testified he struck Dayhuff in self-defense because Dayhuff had an open pocketknife and was not being held by Jeffery, but multiple other witnesses testified Dayhuff was being held and had no knife.
Procedural Posture:
- J. E. Mitchell was charged by information with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under Penal Code section 245.
- Mitchell filed a demurrer to the information, arguing it failed to specify the kind or character of force used, which the trial court overruled.
- Mitchell made a motion in arrest of judgment, which the trial court denied.
- A jury found Mitchell guilty of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.
- Mitchell moved for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Mitchell appealed the judgment of conviction and the orders denying his motion for a new trial and his motion in arrest of judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an information charging assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury satisfy legal pleading requirements by using only statutory language without specifying the particular means used, and if so, does such a charge violate double jeopardy rights when evidence shows multiple acts of force within a single transaction?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, P. J.
No, an information charging assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury is sufficient when pleaded in the words of the statute without specific detail, and such a charge does not violate double jeopardy rights simply because multiple acts of force occurred in a single transaction. The court found that there was substantial credible evidence to support Mitchell's conviction. Addressing the challenge to the information's sufficiency, the court noted that the prior rule from People v. Perales (1904), which required specifying the particular means used in charging an assault under Penal Code section 245, had been superseded by statutory amendments. The Legislature's 1927 and 1929 amendments to Penal Code section 952 explicitly state that an offense may be charged "in the words of the enactment describing the offense... or in any words sufficient to give the accused notice of the offense." Citing People v. Pierce and People v. Beesly, the court affirmed that it is now sufficient to plead the offense in the exact terms of the statute, and the accused is protected by legal access to the transcript of testimony. Furthermore, any error in overruling a demurrer or denying a motion in arrest of judgment is not reversible unless prejudice is shown. Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the court held there was no merit because Mitchell was clearly prosecuted and convicted for the beer bottle assault, and could establish this in a future plea. Additionally, the court concluded that the blows, including the one with the fist and the one with the bottle, constituted but a single assault, as the evidence of the fist blow was merely part of a continuous transaction culminating in the assault with the bottle, paralleling People v. Oppenheimer.
Concurring - Knight, J.
Knight, J., concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Ward, J.
Ward, J., concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the impact of the 1927 and 1929 amendments to California's Penal Code section 952, which modernized pleading requirements by allowing charges to be stated in statutory language. It effectively overruled prior precedent that demanded more detailed factual allegations in informations, shifting the burden for obtaining specifics to the defendant via access to transcripts. The ruling also reinforced the principle that multiple distinct acts of force against a single victim, occurring within a continuous course of conduct, may be treated as a single offense for the purpose of avoiding double jeopardy concerns, providing important guidance for how courts evaluate the 'unit of prosecution' in assault cases.
