In Re Rankin

California Court of Appeal

In Re Rankin

183 P. 686, 42 Cal. App. 230, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 698

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 15, 1919

DocketCrim. No. 860.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 P. 686 (In Re Rankin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Rankin, 183 P. 686, 42 Cal. App. 230, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 698 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

WASTE, P. J.

From the petition filed in the above-entitled matter, it appears that the petitioner is confined in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin, after conviction, upon a charge of attempt to commit the infamous crime against nature, under section 286 of the Penal Code. While the document is denominated, “A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari,” it *231 amounts to nothing more than a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

[1] While the petition does not contain allegations of fact sufficient to warrant the issuance of such a writ, we are able to ascertain from its averments, and from the petitioner’s brief, filed herein, that the gravamen of the petitioner’s complaint is that the terms of said section 286 of the Penal Code are unintelligible, uncertain, ambiguous, and general, and that an information charging the commission of the crime in the words of the statute, or their equivalent, fails to state an indictable public offense, or any offense, in legally sufficient terms.

Defendant was prosecuted under section 286 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows: “Every person who is guilty of the infamous crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than five years.”

“The section does not define the crime, or state in what it consists, but denominates it ‘the infamous crime against nature. ’ At common law, the crime attempted to be charged was called sodomy. . . . The crime is now, and has been since the days of Blaekstone, designated by law-writers and judges ‘the infamous crime against nature’ [citing cases], and it is so designated in the Penal Code. . . . If the facts stated are not capable of two constructions, and are such as to plainly show to a person of common understanding that a crime has been committed, the information or indictment will be held sufficient. It will also be held sufficient where the crime is substantially alleged in the words of the statute, or their equivalent.” (People v. Carroll, 1 Cal. App. 3, [81 Pac. 681].)

“Every person of ordinary intelligence understands what the crime against nature with a human being is.” (People v. Williams, 59 Cal. 397, 398.)

The writ is denied.

Richards, J., and Bardin, J., pro tern., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WASTE, P. J.

From the petition filed in the above-entitled matter, it appears that the petitioner is confined in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin, after conviction, upon a charge of attempt to commit the infamous crime against nature, under section 286 of the Penal Code. While the document is denominated, “A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari,” it *231 amounts to nothing more than a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

[1] While the petition does not contain allegations of fact sufficient to warrant the issuance of such a writ, we are able to ascertain from its averments, and from the petitioner’s brief, filed herein, that the gravamen of the petitioner’s complaint is that the terms of said section 286 of the Penal Code are unintelligible, uncertain, ambiguous, and general, and that an information charging the commission of the crime in the words of the statute, or their equivalent, fails to state an indictable public offense, or any offense, in legally sufficient terms.

Defendant was prosecuted under section 286 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows: “Every person who is guilty of the infamous crime against nature, committed with mankind or with any animal, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not less than five years.”

“The section does not define the crime, or state in what it consists, but denominates it ‘the infamous crime against nature. ’ At common law, the crime attempted to be charged was called sodomy. . . . The crime is now, and has been since the days of Blaekstone, designated by law-writers and judges ‘the infamous crime against nature’ [citing cases], and it is so designated in the Penal Code. . . . If the facts stated are not capable of two constructions, and are such as to plainly show to a person of common understanding that a crime has been committed, the information or indictment will be held sufficient. It will also be held sufficient where the crime is substantially alleged in the words of the statute, or their equivalent.” (People v. Carroll, 1 Cal. App. 3, [81 Pac. 681].)

“Every person of ordinary intelligence understands what the crime against nature with a human being is.” (People v. Williams, 59 Cal. 397, 398.)

The writ is denied.

Richards, J., and Bardin, J., pro tern., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 P. 686, 42 Cal. App. 230, 1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rankin-calctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack