People v. Seals

California Supreme Court

People v. Seals

462 P.2d 993, 1 Cal. 3d 574, 82 Cal. Rptr. 873, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 331

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1970

DocketCrim. 14041

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 462 P.2d 993 (People v. Seals) 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. Seals, 462 P.2d 993, 1 Cal. 3d 574, 82 Cal. Rptr. 873, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 331 (Cal. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT:

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sitting without a jury found him guilty of two counts of assault by *575 means of force likely to produce great bodily harm. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a).) While in a drunken rage, defendant brutally assaulted the landlady of the rooming house at which: he was living and a roomer, who came to the landlady’s assistance. The assaults were triggered when the landlady told defendant to stop drinking or move out. Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that the trial court failed to consider the fact that he was intoxicated in determining whether he had the requisite criminal intent to commit the assaults. (See Pen. Code, § 22.) We determined this contention adversely to defendant in People v. Hood (1969) ante, pp.444, 458-459 [82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370],

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion

THE COURT:

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sitting without a jury found him guilty of two counts of assault by *575 means of force likely to produce great bodily harm. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a).) While in a drunken rage, defendant brutally assaulted the landlady of the rooming house at which: he was living and a roomer, who came to the landlady’s assistance. The assaults were triggered when the landlady told defendant to stop drinking or move out. Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that the trial court failed to consider the fact that he was intoxicated in determining whether he had the requisite criminal intent to commit the assaults. (See Pen. Code, § 22.) We determined this contention adversely to defendant in People v. Hood (1969) ante, pp.444, 458-459 [82 Cal.Rptr. 618, 462 P.2d 370],

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 P.2d 993, 1 Cal. 3d 574, 82 Cal. Rptr. 873, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seals-cal-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack