People v. Johnson

California Court of Appeal

People v. Johnson

238 P. 814, 73 Cal. App. 214, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 280

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 12, 1925

DocketDocket No. 853.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 238 P. 814 (People v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 238 P. 814, 73 Cal. App. 214, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PLUMMER, J.

The defendant was convicted of maintaining a nuisance by having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor at 301G W Street in the city of Sacramento on the - day of December, 1924. The conviction was had upon the theory that unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor within a building constituted the crime of maintaining a common nuisance. The information in this ease is similar to the information in the cases of People v. Buonocore, ante, p. 208 [238 Pac. 812], and People v. Rico, ante, p. 213 [238 Pac. 814], but as counsel for the defendant has urged no objection to the information we refrain from making any ruling thereon. The testimony in this case showing unlawful possession only, what we have said in the case of People v. Mehra, ante, p. 162 [238 Pac. 802], is applicable here. The instructions given by the court in this case are also identical with the instructions given in the Mehra case, and for the reasons therein stated, must be held erroneous.

In this case, according to the testimony of one witness, there appears an extrajudicial admission of the defendant that he had peddled some liquor, but the rule is well established that the corpus delicti of an offense cannot be established by such testimony. For the reasons set forth in the opinion filed in the case of People v. Mehra, supra, the judgment of the trial court must be and the same is hereby reversed.

Thompson, J., pro tem., and Finch, P. J., concurred.

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

PLUMMER, J.

The defendant was convicted of maintaining a nuisance by having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor at 301G W Street in the city of Sacramento on the - day of December, 1924. The conviction was had upon the theory that unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor within a building constituted the crime of maintaining a common nuisance. The information in this ease is similar to the information in the cases of People v. Buonocore, ante, p. 208 [238 Pac. 812], and People v. Rico, ante, p. 213 [238 Pac. 814], but as counsel for the defendant has urged no objection to the information we refrain from making any ruling thereon. The testimony in this case showing unlawful possession only, what we have said in the case of People v. Mehra, ante, p. 162 [238 Pac. 802], is applicable here. The instructions given by the court in this case are also identical with the instructions given in the Mehra case, and for the reasons therein stated, must be held erroneous.

In this case, according to the testimony of one witness, there appears an extrajudicial admission of the defendant that he had peddled some liquor, but the rule is well established that the corpus delicti of an offense cannot be established by such testimony. For the reasons set forth in the opinion filed in the case of People v. Mehra, supra, the judgment of the trial court must be and the same is hereby reversed.

Thompson, J., pro tem., and Finch, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 P. 814, 73 Cal. App. 214, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-johnson-calctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack