## Facts

- Mariano Soto was indicted for grand larceny under a statute treating theft of certain livestock (including a “cow”) as grand larceny.
- The indictment alleged theft of a “cow.”
- At trial, the prosecution’s proof described the animal taken as a heifer (a young female bovine).
- The prosecution introduced a deposition/confession attributed to Soto.
- Soto objected that the confession was involuntary because it was induced by threats or inducements while he was in custody.
- The trial court admitted the confession without requiring preliminary proof of voluntariness and refused to allow Soto to present evidence of coercion.
- Soto was convicted and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting the confession without a preliminary showing that it was voluntary and by preventing the defense from offering evidence that it was induced by threats or inducements.
2. Whether an indictment charging theft of a “cow” fatally varies from proof that the animal stolen was a heifer, given the statute’s livestock terms defining grand larceny.

## Decision

- The conviction was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
- The trial court erred in admitting the confession without a voluntariness foundation and in refusing to hear defense evidence challenging voluntariness.
- The Court rejected the variance claim, holding that “cow” includes a heifer for purposes of the grand larceny statute and indictment.

## Legal Principles

- A confession allegedly obtained through threats or inducements is inadmissible unless the prosecution first makes a preliminary showing that it was voluntary.
- When voluntariness is contested, the defendant must be permitted to present evidence on coercion before the confession is submitted to the jury.
- For livestock larceny, statutory and pleading references to a “cow” include a heifer; proof that the animal was a heifer does not create a fatal variance from an indictment alleging a cow.
- Penal statutes are to be construed reasonably in light of legislative purpose, rather than through hypertechnical limitations that defeat the statute’s operation.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the confession was admitted without the required voluntariness inquiry and without allowing the defense to contest coercion, but it clarified that charging theft of a “cow” is sufficient where the proof shows the animal was a heifer.


People v. Soto, 49 Cal. 67 (Cal. 1874)