People v. More, 12 P. 631 (Cal. 1887). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. More, 12 P. 631 (Cal. 1887). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2009 · …required the court to spread upon the minutes for public reference the reason for its action in dismissing a felony prosecution. at p. 547 ⚠ not in text
55 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Bonnetta (cal, 2009-04-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1914 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1914 1970 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bonnetta (2×)
Cal. · 2009 · confidence medium
It holds the power to dismiss, as the attorney-general in England holds the power to enter a nolle prosequi, by virtue of the office and the law; and it is exercised upon official responsibility." ( People v. More (1887) 71 Cal. 546, 547 [ 12 P. 631 ].) But in granting authority to a court to dismiss "in furtherance of justice," the Legislature "required the court to spread upon the minutes for public reference the reason for its action in dismissing a felony prosecution." ( People v. Romero (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 667, 670 [ 57 P.2d 557 ].) "From the standpoint of the public welfare, potent argu…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Steinbrook
Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. · 1978 · confidence medium
(See People v. Sidener, 58 Cal.2d 645, 647-649 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 375 P.2d 641 ]; People v. More, 71 Cal. 546, 547 [ 12 P. 631 ].) Moreover, if applied to section 1385, the Allen decision would lead to the anomalous result that a dismissal under section 1385 which was ordered before the end of a trial would not be subject to appeal (cf. People v. Superior Court (Biggs), 19 Cal.App.3d 522, 534-535 [ 97 Cal.Rptr. 118 ]), whereas a similar dismissal ordered after discharge of a deadlocked jury would be appealable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Beasley (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1970 · confidence medium
It holds the power to dismiss, as the attprneygeneral in England holds the power to enter a nolle prosequi, by virtue of the office and the law; and it is exercised upon official responsibility.” (People v. More (1886) 71 Cal. 546, 547 [ 12 P. 631 ], See also, People v. Superior Court [Howard] (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 499 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 330 , 446 P.2d 138 ]; People v. Sidener (1962) 58 Cal.2d 645, 647-648 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 697 , 375 P.2d 641 ]; People v. Valenti (1957) 49 Cal.2d 199, 208 [ 316 P.2d 633 ] [limited in People v. Sidener, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 647 ]; People v. Superior Court [Kaspare…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Baxter
Cal. Ct. App. · 1953 · confidence medium
(People v. More, 71 Cal. 546, 547 [ 12 P. 631 ]; People v. Romero, 13 Cal.App.2d 667, 670 [ 57 P.2d 557 ]; People v. Morris, 115 Cal.App.2d 585, 587 [ 252 P.2d 681 ].) It is urged by appellant that the offense herein charged was a misdemeanor; that the action of the trial court terminated any further prosecution of the case (Pen.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Dain
Cal. · 2025 · signal: accord · confidence high
Code, § 1385, subd. (a) (section 1385(a)).) This provision, whose origins trace to the earliest days of statehood, reflects “California’s rejection of the English rule of nolle prosequi, under which the prosecutor alone had authority to discontinue a prosecution” in favor of a 6 PEOPLE v. DAIN Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. rule “granting sole authority to the courts to dismiss actions in furtherance of justice.” (People v. Bonnetta (2009) 46 Cal.4th 143 , 148–149 (Bonnetta); accord, e.g., People v. More (1887) 71 Cal. 546 ; see Stats. 1850, ch. 119, § 629, p. 323.) Californi…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
THE PEOPLE
v.
A. P. MORE
No. 20267.
California Supreme Court.
Jan 17, 1887.
12 P. 631
1887 Cal. LEXIS 419
Attorney-General Johnson, J. J. Boyce, and W. T. Williams, for Appellant., McNulta & Oglesby, R. B. Canfield, and George Flournoy, for Respondent.
McFarland.
Cited by 28 opinions  |  Published
McFarland, J.

This is an appeal taken in the name of the people from an order made by the Superior Court of the county of Santa Barbara, of its own motion, dismissing a criminal action in which respondent herein was defendant. The order was made under the power granted in section 1385 of the Penal Code, which is as follows:—

“ Sec. 1385. The court may, either of its own motion or upon the application of the district attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action or indictment to be dismissed. The reasons of the dismissal must be set forth in an order entered upon the minutes.”

The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the order is one from which no statutory right of appeal is given to the people. It is certainly not one of the enumerated cases in which a right of appeal is given by section 1238 of the code, and there is no other statutory provision giving such right.

It is contended, however, by appellant, that as the[*547] constitution gives this court appellate jurisdiction of questions of law arising “ in all criminal cases prosecuted, by indictment or information, in a court of record,” therefore there is jurisdiction here, although no statutory machinery for the appeal has been provided, as held in People v. Jordan, 65 Cal. 644. But the order in question is, in its nature and character, one from which the people cannot appeal. The power under which the order was made is substantially the same as that held by the attorney-general in England, and by the prosecuting officer in many of the American states, to enter a nolle prosequi. The court, for the purposes of the order of dismissal, takes charge of the prosecution, and acts for the people. It holds the power to dismiss, as the attorney-general in England holds the power to enter a nolle prosequi, by virtue of the office and the law; and it is exercised upon official responsibility. The court having acted for the people, and under express power granted by them to so act in their criminal prosecutions, there is no appeal on their part for such action. Of course, if a defendant should appeal from such an order, as he well might if it were made after the impaneling of a jury, a different case would be presented. (Commonwealth v. Tuck, 20 Pick. 365.)

Appeal dismissed.

Thornton, J., Temple, J., Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.