People v. Parks
44 Cal. 105, 1872 Cal. LEXIS 161
Opinion
The indictment alleges the offense to have been committed in the County of Yolo. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and it was, of course, incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the locus delicti. This was not done. The evidence conduces to establish that the robbery charged was committed, if at all, at the drinking saloon of Stroback, but there is nothing in the record which tends in the slightest degree to show that this saloon was situated in the County of Yolo.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Parks, 44 Cal. 105, 1872 Cal. LEXIS 161 (Cal. 1872).
44 Cal. 105 (People v. Parks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Simon
25 P.3d 598 (California Supreme Court, 2001)
People v. Sering
232 Cal. App. 3d 677 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
People v. Kutz
187 Cal. App. 2d 431 (California Court of Appeal, 1960)
People v. Megladdery
106 P.2d 84 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
People v. Pollock
80 P.2d 106 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
People v. Díaz
20 P.R. 357 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1914)
El Pueblo v. Díaz
20 P.R. Dec. 381 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1914)
People v. Meseros
116 P. 679 (California Court of Appeal, 1910)
State v. First Nat. Bank
51 N.W. 780 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1892)
State v. McGinniss
74 Mo. 245 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)
People v. Bevans
52 Cal. 470 (California Supreme Court, 1877)
People v. Roach
48 Cal. 382 (California Supreme Court, 1874)