People v. Gatlin

California Court of Appeal

People v. Gatlin

267 P. 564, 92 Cal. App. 42, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 411

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 18, 1928

DocketDocket No. 1601.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 P. 564 (People v. Gatlin) 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

People v. Gatlin, 267 P. 564, 92 Cal. App. 42, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

WORKS, P. J.

Defendant was charged by information with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. He appeals from the judgment, from an order of the trial court denying him motion for a new trial and from an order of the trial court denying a motion for his release.

The verdict rendered in the cause reads: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of the possession of intoxicating liquor.'’ It will be observed that the verdict omits the word “unlawful” before the word “possession.” The sole contention made by appellant is that the verdict fails to support the judgment of conviction.

The charge made by the information was properly phrased, it notified appellant of the exact nature of the charge against him, and he makes no objection to it. The jury was carefully instructed that the mere possession of intoxicating liquor is not a crime, and other instructions were given which informed the jury as to the elements of the crime with which appellant was charged. Moreover, no point is made that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge or to support a verdict of guilty. Under all these circumstances we think the verdict was sufficient. See People v. Holmes, 118 Cal. 444 [50 Pac. 675]; People v. Cornell, 29 Cal. App. 430 [155 Pac. 1026] ; People v. Mercado, 59 Cal. App. 69 [209 Pac. 1035]. The fact that *44 the jury declared appellant “guilty,” after hearing the information, the plea of not guilty and the instructions of the court, is alone a circumstance of great weight. Judgment and orders affirmed.

Craig, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

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

WORKS, P. J.

Defendant was charged by information with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. He appeals from the judgment, from an order of the trial court denying him motion for a new trial and from an order of the trial court denying a motion for his release.

The verdict rendered in the cause reads: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of the possession of intoxicating liquor.'’ It will be observed that the verdict omits the word “unlawful” before the word “possession.” The sole contention made by appellant is that the verdict fails to support the judgment of conviction.

The charge made by the information was properly phrased, it notified appellant of the exact nature of the charge against him, and he makes no objection to it. The jury was carefully instructed that the mere possession of intoxicating liquor is not a crime, and other instructions were given which informed the jury as to the elements of the crime with which appellant was charged. Moreover, no point is made that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge or to support a verdict of guilty. Under all these circumstances we think the verdict was sufficient. See People v. Holmes, 118 Cal. 444 [50 Pac. 675]; People v. Cornell, 29 Cal. App. 430 [155 Pac. 1026] ; People v. Mercado, 59 Cal. App. 69 [209 Pac. 1035]. The fact that *44 the jury declared appellant “guilty,” after hearing the information, the plea of not guilty and the instructions of the court, is alone a circumstance of great weight. Judgment and orders affirmed.

Craig, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 P. 564, 92 Cal. App. 42, 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gatlin-calctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack