In Re Trauger

California Court of Appeal

In Re Trauger

262 P. 780, 88 Cal. App. 59, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 21

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 28, 1927

DocketDocket No. 1594.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 P. 780 (In Re Trauger) 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 Trauger, 262 P. 780, 88 Cal. App. 59, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 21 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

-In the petition it appears that in a justice’s court in the county of Tulare, a complaint was filed, wherein petitioner was charged with unlawful of intoxicating liquor, a misdemeanor. He pleaded not guilty and was tried and convicted.

The evidence was in the form of certain stipulations of fact. Petitioner claims that the court was without to render its judgment against petitioner, and that the imprisonment (for nonpayment of the imposed fine) is illegal in this, that the mere possession of intoxicating liquor is not a crime, but that it must be charged and proved that the possession was accompanied by some unlaw *60 ful intent. In a habeas corpus proceeding the question of insufficiency of evidence to warrant conviction cannot be considered. (In re Jacobs, 175 Cal. 661 [166 Pac. 801]; In re Horr, 177 Cal. 721 [171 Pac. 801]; In re Williams, 183 Cal. 11 [190 Pac. 163].)

The case is thus reduced to the point where the only question relates to the sufficiency of the complaint to charge the commission of a misdemeanor. There is nothing in the petition to indicate that the complaint failed in any essential element required in charging the commission of a public offense. Where the charge is that of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary to negative any of the exceptions which, if they existed, would make the possession lawful. (People v. Cencevich, 64 Cal. App. 39, 44 [220 Pac. 448].)

The'petition is denied.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

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

CONREY, P. J.

-In the petition it appears that in a justice’s court in the county of Tulare, a complaint was filed, wherein petitioner was charged with unlawful of intoxicating liquor, a misdemeanor. He pleaded not guilty and was tried and convicted.

The evidence was in the form of certain stipulations of fact. Petitioner claims that the court was without to render its judgment against petitioner, and that the imprisonment (for nonpayment of the imposed fine) is illegal in this, that the mere possession of intoxicating liquor is not a crime, but that it must be charged and proved that the possession was accompanied by some unlaw *60 ful intent. In a habeas corpus proceeding the question of insufficiency of evidence to warrant conviction cannot be considered. (In re Jacobs, 175 Cal. 661 [166 Pac. 801]; In re Horr, 177 Cal. 721 [171 Pac. 801]; In re Williams, 183 Cal. 11 [190 Pac. 163].)

The case is thus reduced to the point where the only question relates to the sufficiency of the complaint to charge the commission of a misdemeanor. There is nothing in the petition to indicate that the complaint failed in any essential element required in charging the commission of a public offense. Where the charge is that of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, it is not necessary to negative any of the exceptions which, if they existed, would make the possession lawful. (People v. Cencevich, 64 Cal. App. 39, 44 [220 Pac. 448].)

The'petition is denied.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 P. 780, 88 Cal. App. 59, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-trauger-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack