Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantjurisdictionstatutefelonymisdemeanor
defendantjurisdictionattorneystatuteappealfelonymisdemeanorprobation

Related Cases

Britt v. State, 363 N.C. 546, 681 S.E.2d 320
View Case »
United States v. Bustamante, 857 Fed.Appx. 268 (Mem)
View Case »
Horn v. United States Min. Co., 47 Or. 124, 81 P. 1009
View Case »
State v. Baby, 404 Md. 220, 946 A.2d 463
View Case »
Douglass v. State, 219 Ariz. 152, 195 P.3d 189
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People v. Fiene, 226 Cal.App.2d 305, 37 Cal.Rptr. 925

Facts

On February 11, 1963, defendant and two men entered the Valley-Ho restaurant, ordered meals, and left without paying. After eating, defendant went to the restroom and exited through a side door, while the other two men also left without settling the bill. The restaurant manager noticed and attempted to follow them, leading to a police investigation. Defendant initially denied being at the restaurant but later admitted to being there with the other men. He had prior felony convictions, and the prosecution charged him with petty theft.

Defendant was found guilty by the court of a violation of section 667 of the Penal Code, petty theft with a prior conviction of a felony. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to a county jail term. He appeals from the judgment of conviction. A resumé of the facts is as follows: On February 11, 1963, at about 3:30 a. m., defendant and two other men entered the Valley-Ho restaurant and ordered meals. After eating, defendant got up, went to the restroom for a few minutes, and then left the restaurant by the side exit. One of the two remaining men asked for and was given the check for the price of the meals. Approximately ten minutes after defendant had left, the other two men started for the restroom, and then left by the same exit defendant had used. No one paid the check in the amount of about eight dollars.

Issue

Whether the existence of Penal Code section 537, which makes it a misdemeanor to defraud an innkeeper, prevents the superior court from acquiring jurisdiction in this matter.

The question presented is whether the existence of Penal Code, section 537 (The Innkeeper Statute), making it a misdemeanor to defraud an innkeeper, prevents the superior court from acquiring jurisdiction in this matter.

Rule

The rule is well established that where a general statute includes the same matter as a special statute, the special act is to be considered as an exception to the general statute.

The rule is well established that where a general statute, standing alone, includes the same matter as a special statute, and thus conflicts with it, the special act is to be considered as an exception to the general statute, whether it was passed before or after the general enactment.

Analysis

The court analyzed the applicability of the Innkeeper Statute in relation to the general theft statute. It determined that the elements of the special statute were the same as those for petty theft, and thus, the special statute should govern the case. The court referenced previous cases that supported the notion that the superior court lacked jurisdiction when a special statute applied.

The attorney general, in raising this issue, concedes that the elements of the special statute making it a crime to defraud an innkeeper ( § 537 ), are the same as the elements of petty theft, but nevertheless maintains, that the above stated rule should not be applicable in this case.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment of conviction, concluding that the superior court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case due to the specific provisions of the Innkeeper Statute.

The judgment of conviction is reversed.

Who won?

Defendant prevailed in the case because the court found that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to try him under the general theft statute, as the special statute applied.

Defendant prevailed in the case because the court found that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to try him under the general theft statute, as the special statute applied.

You must be