People v. Burns

63 Cal. 614, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 539
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJune 29, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 63 Cal. 614 (People v. Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Burns, 63 Cal. 614, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 539 (Cal. 1883).

Opinion

Myrick, J.

The defendant was accused by the district attorney of the crime of burglary, and the information charged that the accused committed the crime as follows: That he did feloniously and burglariously enter a certain house of one-[naming a woman], in which said house she, the said [woman named] did then and there reside, with intent then and there to commit a rape upon the said [woman named].

Section 261, Penal Code, defines the crime of rape as the act therein named accomplished under either of six sets of circumstances therein set forth. Objection was made to the information in that it did not state under which set of circumstances specified in this section the act was intended by the defendant to be accomplished. We think the information was sufficient. (People v. Shaber, 32 Cal. 36; People v. Girr, 53 Cal. 629.)

In the charge to the jury the court read subdivisions 3 and 4 of section 261, above mentioned, as applicable to the case on trial. Subdivision 3 and the first part of subdivision 4 did relate to the case; but there was no testimony to which the latter part of subdivision 4 would be applicable, in that there was no testimony that any intoxicating, narcotic, or anaesthetic substance was administered or attempted to be administered. The defendant alleges that it was error to read the latter part of this subdivision. The entry into the house in the night time, and the use of force and threats in endeavoring to accomplish1 the act, were in evidence; and upon that evidence the jury was justified in convicting the defendant. It is not apparent that the reading of the clause objected to affected any substantial right of the defendant. (§ 1258, Pen. Code.)

Judgment and order affirmed.

Ross, J., McKee, J,, Sharpstein, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

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

Related

People v. Cahill
853 P.2d 1037 (California Supreme Court, 1993)
People v. Padilla
210 Cal. App. 2d 541 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
People v. Castro Anguita
75 P.R. 630 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1953)
El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Castro Anguita
75 P.R. Dec. 672 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1953)
People v. Blankenship
228 P.2d 835 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
People v. Marino
42 P.2d 713 (California Court of Appeal, 1935)
People v. Ramírez
41 P.R. 742 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1931)
Pueblo v. Ramírez
41 P.R. Dec. 747 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1931)
People v. Myers
275 P. 219 (California Supreme Court, 1929)
In re the Charges Against Darrow
92 N.E. 369 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
People v. Miles
101 P. 525 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)
People v. Goldsworthy
62 P. 1074 (California Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 Cal. 614, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burns-cal-1883.