People v. Parker

California Court of Appeal

People v. Parker

54 Cal. App. 101

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 26, 1921

DocketCrim. No. 949

StatusPublished

This text of 54 Cal. App. 101 (People v. Parker) 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. Parker, 54 Cal. App. 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

LANGDON, P. J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of the offense designated “pimping” in an act approved February 8, 1911, and found in Statutes of 1911 at page [102]*10210. He moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, as was also his motion for probation, after the filing of the report of the probation officer thereon. From the judgment of the court rendered herein the defendant appeals. The appeal is based solely upon the claim of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. No useful purpose would be served by a review of the evidence in this opinion. [1] The evidence is ample to support the verdict, and we think no other verdict could have been reached by the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Nourse, J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

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

LANGDON, P. J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of the offense designated “pimping” in an act approved February 8, 1911, and found in Statutes of 1911 at page [102]*10210. He moved for a new trial, which motion was denied, as was also his motion for probation, after the filing of the report of the probation officer thereon. From the judgment of the court rendered herein the defendant appeals. The appeal is based solely upon the claim of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict. No useful purpose would be served by a review of the evidence in this opinion. [1] The evidence is ample to support the verdict, and we think no other verdict could have been reached by the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Nourse, J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Cal. App. 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parker-calctapp-1921.