Skip to content
Name: People v. Tindall
Case #: S080078
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 12/28/2000
Subsequent History: None
Summary

Resolving the question left by People v. Valladoli (1996) 13 Cal.4th 590, the California Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to make a post-verdict, presentencing amendment to the information to add prior conviction allegations. Here the jury had already been discharged, and this violated Penal Code section 1025, subdivision (b), which entitles a defendant to the same jury for proof of the offense and proof of the prior conviction allegations. Finding Penal Code section 1025, subdivision (b), motivated by fiscal considerations for the state, and not benefit to the defendant, and recalling that Penal Code section 969a had been construed in Valladoli to limit amendment to any time before sentencing as long as the jury has not been discharged, the California Supreme Court held that section 1025 trumps section 969a. Justice Brown dissented, and Justice Baxter concurred in the dissent. Justice Brown found the language of Penal Code section 1025 to be directory rather than mandatory, and the considerations of judicial economy leading to its adoption secondary to the purposes of Penal Code section 939a.