People v. Laino

California Court of Appeal

People v. Laino

207 P. 907, 57 Cal. App. 645, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 456

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 10, 1922

DocketCrim. No. 625.

StatusPublished

This text of 207 P. 907 (People v. Laino) 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. Laino, 207 P. 907, 57 Cal. App. 645, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 456 (Cal. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

FINCH, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of secreting and disposing of insured property with intent to defraud the insurer thereof. Prom the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial he prosecutes this appeal.

The indictment alleges that the crime was committed on or about July 19, 1921, in Madera County. The evidence shows that prior to the nineteenth day of July, 1921, the defendant removed certain insured personal property from his residence in Madera County to the city of Presno, in Presno County, where it remained until December 28, 1921, when it was taken into custody by the officers of Madera County. The defendant’s dwelling-house from which the property had been removed, together with the contents thereof, was destroyed by fire July 19, 1921. In his proofs of loss the defendant seems to have included the property which he had removed as stated. These proofs were made in Presno.

The defendant was prosecuted under section 548 of the Penal Code. At the time of the alleged offense that section made it criminal to burn, injure, or destroy insured property with intent to defraud the insurer thereof. That section was amended in 1921 (Stats. 1921, p. 99), effective July 29, 1921, making it a crime to bum, injure, destroy, secrete, abandon, or dispose of insured property with intent to defraud the insurer. Prom the foregoing statement it is apparent that no element of the crime charged *647 was committed in Madera County after the amendment went into effect. At the hearing on appeal the respondent did not contest this proposition, but submitted the matter without argument on behalf of the people. Of whatever crime the defendant may be guilty, it is plain that he did not commit the offense charged in Madera County.

The judgment and order are reversed.

Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

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

FINCH, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of secreting and disposing of insured property with intent to defraud the insurer thereof. Prom the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial he prosecutes this appeal.

The indictment alleges that the crime was committed on or about July 19, 1921, in Madera County. The evidence shows that prior to the nineteenth day of July, 1921, the defendant removed certain insured personal property from his residence in Madera County to the city of Presno, in Presno County, where it remained until December 28, 1921, when it was taken into custody by the officers of Madera County. The defendant’s dwelling-house from which the property had been removed, together with the contents thereof, was destroyed by fire July 19, 1921. In his proofs of loss the defendant seems to have included the property which he had removed as stated. These proofs were made in Presno.

The defendant was prosecuted under section 548 of the Penal Code. At the time of the alleged offense that section made it criminal to burn, injure, or destroy insured property with intent to defraud the insurer thereof. That section was amended in 1921 (Stats. 1921, p. 99), effective July 29, 1921, making it a crime to bum, injure, destroy, secrete, abandon, or dispose of insured property with intent to defraud the insurer. Prom the foregoing statement it is apparent that no element of the crime charged *647 was committed in Madera County after the amendment went into effect. At the hearing on appeal the respondent did not contest this proposition, but submitted the matter without argument on behalf of the people. Of whatever crime the defendant may be guilty, it is plain that he did not commit the offense charged in Madera County.

The judgment and order are reversed.

Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 P. 907, 57 Cal. App. 645, 1922 Cal. App. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-laino-calctapp-1922.