California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cnty., A143887 (Cal. App. 2015):
Penal Code section 739, allows the People to file an information against a defendant, charging him either with the offense(s) contained in the order of commitment or "any offense or offenses shown by the evidence taken before the magistrate to have been committed." (Pen. Code 739, italics added.) Furthermore, Penal Code section 1009 states, in pertinent part, "[A]n indictment, accusation or information may be amended by the district attorney, without leave of court at any time before the defendant pleads or a demurrer to the original pleading is sustained." In People v. Manning, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d 159, our colleagues in the Fifth District delineated the scope of
Page 5
amendments authorized pursuant to Penal Code section 739. The Manning court held that "unless the magistrate makes factual findings to the contrary, the prosecutor may amend the information after the preliminary hearing to charge any offense shown by the evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing provided the new crime is transactionally related to the crimes for which the defendant has previously been held to answer." (Manning, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 165.) It further held that because the defendant and defense counsel were present at the preliminary hearing, they had "notice of the potential charges he might have to face." (Id. at p. 167.) Adequate notice is provided by the nature of the evidence itself, rather than the crimes originally charged. (See People v. Donnell (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 227, 233 ["it is not the complaint but the totality of the evidence produced at the preliminary hearing which notifies the defendant of the potential charges he may have to face in the superior court"].)
The kidnapping counts alleged here are clearly transactionally related to the alleged robbery/burglary counts because they arose out of the same event. (See People v. Bartlett (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 787, 790-791.) No party disputes that.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.