People v. Joe Bruno

California Supreme Court

People v. Joe Bruno

286 P. 1037, 209 Cal. 782, 1930 Cal. LEXIS 557

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 26, 1930

DocketDocket No. Crim. 3274.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 286 P. 1037 (People v. Joe Bruno) 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. Joe Bruno, 286 P. 1037, 209 Cal. 782, 1930 Cal. LEXIS 557 (Cal. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

— The defendant and appellant was charged, tried and convicted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles of the crime of unlawfully having in his possession and under Ms control a firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches in length, to wit, a .38-caliber Colt’s automatic pistol. (Stats. 1923, chap. 339, p. 696.)

The objections made as to the validity of the judgment are, in the main, the same as those urged in the case of People v. Guzman, post, p. 783 [286 Pac. 1037], this day filed, with the additional assignment of the introduction in evidence of the extrajudicial statement, made at the time of his arrest, that he was of foreign birth. Whether or not this statement was admissible is not important in view of section 1983 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which placed the burden upon him to prove that he was a citizen of the United States and was, therefore, entitled to exercise all of the prerogatives of citizenship. The appellant offered no evidence whatever as to that issue. The instruction of the court as to the burden of proof was in line with the section of the code above cited. Upon the authority of People v. Osaki, ante, p. 169 [286 Pac. 1025], and People v. Guzman, post, p. 783 [286 Pac. 1037], both this day filed, the judgment and orders from which the appeal is taken are affirmed. It is so ordered.

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

THE COURT.

— The defendant and appellant was charged, tried and convicted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles of the crime of unlawfully having in his possession and under Ms control a firearm having a barrel less than twelve inches in length, to wit, a .38-caliber Colt’s automatic pistol. (Stats. 1923, chap. 339, p. 696.)

The objections made as to the validity of the judgment are, in the main, the same as those urged in the case of People v. Guzman, post, p. 783 [286 Pac. 1037], this day filed, with the additional assignment of the introduction in evidence of the extrajudicial statement, made at the time of his arrest, that he was of foreign birth. Whether or not this statement was admissible is not important in view of section 1983 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which placed the burden upon him to prove that he was a citizen of the United States and was, therefore, entitled to exercise all of the prerogatives of citizenship. The appellant offered no evidence whatever as to that issue. The instruction of the court as to the burden of proof was in line with the section of the code above cited. Upon the authority of People v. Osaki, ante, p. 169 [286 Pac. 1025], and People v. Guzman, post, p. 783 [286 Pac. 1037], both this day filed, the judgment and orders from which the appeal is taken are affirmed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 P. 1037, 209 Cal. 782, 1930 Cal. LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-joe-bruno-cal-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack