People v. Venable

California Court of Appeal

People v. Venable

76 P.2d 523, 25 Cal. App. 2d 73, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 761

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 15, 1938

DocketCrim. 3064

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 76 P.2d 523 (People v. Venable) 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. Venable, 76 P.2d 523, 25 Cal. App. 2d 73, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOD, J.

Defendant was charged in the information with the crime of grand theft and in a second count with the crime of forgery. At a trial before the court without a jury he was found guilty on both counts. He prosecutes this appeal from the judgment.

On the charge of grand theft it was proved that one M. Farman attempted to purchase an automobile from defendant for the total sum of $627. She delivered to him part of the purchase price in cash and later gave him a check for $432. The car was never delivered to her. On the count charging forgery it was established that at the time defendant received the check for $432 he executed and delivered a forged receipt for $627.

Defendant contends that the prosecution may not charge both grand theft and forgery under the circumstances of the case, arguing that the acts shown in evidence constituted a single transaction. There is no merit in the contention. The test is the identity of the offenses as distinguished from the identity of the transactions from which they arise. A defendant may be convicted of two separate offenses arising out of the same transaction when each offense is stated in a separate count and when the two offenses differ in their necessary elements and one is not included within the other. (People v. Zimmer, 23 Cal. App. (2d) 581 [73 Pac. (2d) 923] ; People v. Majors, 65 Cal. 138, 145 [3 Pac. 597, 52 Am. Rep. 295]; People v. Bentley, 77 Cal. 7, 9 [18 Pac. 799, 11 Am. St. Rep. 225] ; People v. Ciulla, 44 Cal. App. 725, 726 [187 Pac. 49]; People v. Brannon, 70 Cal. App. 225, 228 [233 Pac. 88] ; People v. Herbert, 6 Cal. (2d) 541, 547 [58 Pac. (2d) 909].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Crail, P. J., concurred.

MoCOMB, J., Concurring.—I concur in the judgment. However, I do not believe the appeal is properly before this court.

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

WOOD, J.

Defendant was charged in the information with the crime of grand theft and in a second count with the crime of forgery. At a trial before the court without a jury he was found guilty on both counts. He prosecutes this appeal from the judgment.

On the charge of grand theft it was proved that one M. Farman attempted to purchase an automobile from defendant for the total sum of $627. She delivered to him part of the purchase price in cash and later gave him a check for $432. The car was never delivered to her. On the count charging forgery it was established that at the time defendant received the check for $432 he executed and delivered a forged receipt for $627.

Defendant contends that the prosecution may not charge both grand theft and forgery under the circumstances of the case, arguing that the acts shown in evidence constituted a single transaction. There is no merit in the contention. The test is the identity of the offenses as distinguished from the identity of the transactions from which they arise. A defendant may be convicted of two separate offenses arising out of the same transaction when each offense is stated in a separate count and when the two offenses differ in their necessary elements and one is not included within the other. (People v. Zimmer, 23 Cal. App. (2d) 581 [73 Pac. (2d) 923] ; People v. Majors, 65 Cal. 138, 145 [3 Pac. 597, 52 Am. Rep. 295]; People v. Bentley, 77 Cal. 7, 9 [18 Pac. 799, 11 Am. St. Rep. 225] ; People v. Ciulla, 44 Cal. App. 725, 726 [187 Pac. 49]; People v. Brannon, 70 Cal. App. 225, 228 [233 Pac. 88] ; People v. Herbert, 6 Cal. (2d) 541, 547 [58 Pac. (2d) 909].)

The judgment is affirmed.

Crail, P. J., concurred.

MoCOMB, J., Concurring.—I concur in the judgment. However, I do not believe the appeal is properly before this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 P.2d 523, 25 Cal. App. 2d 73, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-venable-calctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack