89 P. 591 | Ariz. | 1907
— rThe indictment in this case charged the defendant, William Thomas, as contractor having charge of the county hospital and poor farm of Yavapai county, with presenting for allowance a false and fraudulent claim contained in a certain quarterly account made by the defendant for the care of the indigent sick of the county. The indictment set forth in full the quarterly account, containing many items covering the charges for the care of different persons, inelud
The indictment in the case before us does not charge the defendant with presenting a false account, but with presenting a certain false and fraudulent claim in an account, which account is set forth in full in the indictment. If the pleader
It appears, from a stipulation in the ease, that, upon the impaneling of the grand jury that found the indictment, a sufficient number of jurors not appearing, the court, in directing the sheriff to summon additional jurors, neglected to include in the order the requirement of paragraph 2808 of the Revised Statutes of 1901, as amended by Laws 1905, page 28, chapter 24, that such persons summoned as jurors should not be persons who had served as jurors upon the regular list within the previous twelve months. The defendant, not having been held to answer before the finding of the indictment, upon arraignment moved to set aside the indictment for failure of the court to include in its order for a special venire the provision referred to, and the denial of this motion is assigned as error. The objection is not one that can be raised under our code, either as a ground for challenge or by motion upon arraignment. Pen. Code’ secs. 791, 792, 862. Furthermore, it appears from the stipulation that the jurors summoned by the special venire had not, as a matter of fact, served as jurors on the regular list within the preceding twelve months. We think the appellant was in no wise prejudiced by the action of the court, and that the failure of the court to comply with the requirements of paragraph 2808 of the Revised Statutes of 1901 was an irregularity merely in the formation of the grand jury, and is not ground for the setting aside of the indictment. People v. Goldenson, 76 Cal. 328, 19 Pac. 161.
It is further urged by the appellant that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, for the reason that the same does not show beyond a reasonable doubt a criminal intent on the part of the defendant to defraud the county. We think there was sufficient evidence on this point to go to the jury, and, as the matter was submitted to them under proper instructions
The court cnarged the jury, in part, as follows: “Testimony has been offered with reference to other acts of similar character to the one in the indictment. The evidence as to these other and collateral acts is admitted in this case for the purpose of showing the frame of mind of the defendant at the time he committed the act charged in the indictment.” The appellant urges that there was no testimony as to other collateral acts, since the testimony referred to was testimony as to the Gamer and Headt items, which were set up in the indictment itself, and that this instruction was not in accordance with the facts, but in direct opposition to them. An examination of the whole charge of the court clearly shows that, although the language used was perhaps not strictly accurate, the jury could not have been misled thereby, nor the appellant prejudiced.
¥e find no error in the record, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
DOAN, CAMPBELL, and NAVE, JJ., concur. „