People v. Russell

California Court of Appeal

People v. Russell

21 P.2d 959, 131 Cal. App. 646, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 830

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 9, 1933

DocketDocket No. 1724.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 21 P.2d 959 (People v. Russell) 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. Russell, 21 P.2d 959, 131 Cal. App. 646, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Defendant was charged upon three counts with violations of section 288 of the Penal Code and with a prior conviction of a felony in the state of Texas. He was convicted on all the charges with the exception of one of the counts, and has appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial and the judgment entered on the verdict.

No objection is made to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges of violations of the sections of the Penal Code, but it is claimed that section 969b of that code, making certain records evidence of a prior conviction, violates the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.

As shown by the following there is no merit in this contention: 16 Cor. Jur., Criminal Law, secs. 3161, 3162, pp. 1343, 1344; 12 Cor. Jur., Constitutional Law, sec. 879, pp. 1205, 1206; People v. Sierp, 116 Cal. 249, 251 [48 Pac. 88]; West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258 [24 Sup. Ct. 650, 48 *647 L. Ed. 965]; Mobile J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35 [31 Sup. Ct. 136, 55 L. Ed. 78, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 226]; People v. Sickles, 156 N. Y. 541 [51 N. E. 288],

The judgment and order are affirmed.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on May 24, 1933.

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

THE COURT.

Defendant was charged upon three counts with violations of section 288 of the Penal Code and with a prior conviction of a felony in the state of Texas. He was convicted on all the charges with the exception of one of the counts, and has appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial and the judgment entered on the verdict.

No objection is made to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges of violations of the sections of the Penal Code, but it is claimed that section 969b of that code, making certain records evidence of a prior conviction, violates the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.

As shown by the following there is no merit in this contention: 16 Cor. Jur., Criminal Law, secs. 3161, 3162, pp. 1343, 1344; 12 Cor. Jur., Constitutional Law, sec. 879, pp. 1205, 1206; People v. Sierp, 116 Cal. 249, 251 [48 Pac. 88]; West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258 [24 Sup. Ct. 650, 48 *647 L. Ed. 965]; Mobile J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35 [31 Sup. Ct. 136, 55 L. Ed. 78, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 226]; People v. Sickles, 156 N. Y. 541 [51 N. E. 288],

The judgment and order are affirmed.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on May 24, 1933.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 P.2d 959, 131 Cal. App. 646, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-russell-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack