245 P. 998 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1926
The defendant was accused by information, filed by the district attorney of Ventura County, of the crime of violation of section
The sole point raised worthy of consideration by this court is whether or not the trial court erred in permitting the district attorney to amend the information prior to the trial. The amendment was one made to make the information conform to the decision in the case of People v. Grinnel,
[1] Prior to the amendment the information as filed, although defective as above stated, was nevertheless an information attempting to charge the commission of a crime. The amendment completed the charge. As there is nothing to the contrary in the record it will be assumed, in support of the order allowing the amendment, that the information as amended correctly states an offense shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination, and for which the defendant was committed. This being so, it was within the power of the court to allow such amendment to be made. Section
There is nothing in the nature of the amendment, or in any circumstance of the case, that would suggest any abuse of discretion by the court in its exercise of the power thus conferred. On allowance of the amendment the defendant made no request for a continuance of time of trial, or any showing that he was entitled to a continuance. After an *429 examination of the entire cause we are satisfied that the case was fully and fairly tried and that there was ample evidence to authorize the conviction.
The judgment is affirmed.
Conrey, P.J., and Houser, J., concurred.