People v. Pettegrew

California Supreme Court

People v. Pettegrew

8 Cal. 3d 347

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1972

DocketCrim. No. 15841

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Cal. 3d 347 (People v. Pettegrew) 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. Pettegrew, 8 Cal. 3d 347 (Cal. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

WRIGHT, C. J.

Defendant, a licensed physician, was charged by information with three counts of violating Penal Code section 274 (abortion). The case was submitted on the record of the preliminary examination and certain stipulations on the first count only. Defendant appeals from the judgment (order granting probation) following conviction by the court sitting without a jury.

For the reasons stated in People v. Barksdale, ante, page 320 [105 Cal.Rptr. 1, 503 P.2d 257], the judgment (order granting probation) is reversed with directions to the trial court to dismiss the information.

Peters, J., Tobriner, J., and Mosk, J., concurred.

BURKE, J.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting and concurring opinion in People v. Barksdale, ante, page 320 [105 Cal.Rptr. 1, 503 P.2d 257], I would affirm the judgment.

McComb, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred.

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

Opinion

WRIGHT, C. J.

Defendant, a licensed physician, was charged by information with three counts of violating Penal Code section 274 (abortion). The case was submitted on the record of the preliminary examination and certain stipulations on the first count only. Defendant appeals from the judgment (order granting probation) following conviction by the court sitting without a jury.

For the reasons stated in People v. Barksdale, ante, page 320 [105 Cal.Rptr. 1, 503 P.2d 257], the judgment (order granting probation) is reversed with directions to the trial court to dismiss the information.

Peters, J., Tobriner, J., and Mosk, J., concurred.

BURKE, J.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting and concurring opinion in People v. Barksdale, ante, page 320 [105 Cal.Rptr. 1, 503 P.2d 257], I would affirm the judgment.

McComb, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cal. 3d 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pettegrew-cal-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack