People v. Hawkins

California Court of Appeal

People v. Hawkins

19 P.2d 249, 129 Cal. App. 720, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 1093

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 20, 1933

DocketDocket No. 2251.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 P.2d 249 (People v. Hawkins) 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. Hawkins, 19 P.2d 249, 129 Cal. App. 720, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 1093 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

YORK, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of conviction of the crime of burglary, and from an order denying motion for a new trial.

The defendant appeals upon the ground that there was no evidence that the defendant entered “with intent to commit theft, larceny or any felony of whatsoever nature. . . . That there was no evidence that- while defendant was in said house he did commit theft, larceny or any felony whatsoever. ’ ’ There was evidence that the defendant was discovered in the house that was occupied by the complaining witness and her family; that he was there without her consent and without her knowledge until he disclosed his presence by making a noise; that upon her hearing a noise on the stairs in her house, she looked to see who it was and saw the defendant and that the defendant said to her: “Don’t make any noise; don’t holler, God damn it, or I will kill you.”

*721 The evidence in this case against the defendant is amply sufficient to sustain the implied finding of the jury that his entry into the house of the complaining witness was an entry made with intent to commit the crime of larceny. (People v. Espalian, 92 Cal. App. 610 [268 Pac. 702].)

The judgment is affirmed. The order denying motion for new trial is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Houser, J., concurred.

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

YORK, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of conviction of the crime of burglary, and from an order denying motion for a new trial.

The defendant appeals upon the ground that there was no evidence that the defendant entered “with intent to commit theft, larceny or any felony of whatsoever nature. . . . That there was no evidence that- while defendant was in said house he did commit theft, larceny or any felony whatsoever. ’ ’ There was evidence that the defendant was discovered in the house that was occupied by the complaining witness and her family; that he was there without her consent and without her knowledge until he disclosed his presence by making a noise; that upon her hearing a noise on the stairs in her house, she looked to see who it was and saw the defendant and that the defendant said to her: “Don’t make any noise; don’t holler, God damn it, or I will kill you.”

*721 The evidence in this case against the defendant is amply sufficient to sustain the implied finding of the jury that his entry into the house of the complaining witness was an entry made with intent to commit the crime of larceny. (People v. Espalian, 92 Cal. App. 610 [268 Pac. 702].)

The judgment is affirmed. The order denying motion for new trial is affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and Houser, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 P.2d 249, 129 Cal. App. 720, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hawkins-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack