People v. Wallen

California Court of Appeal

People v. Wallen

16 P.2d 189, 127 Cal. App. 542, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 356

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 18, 1932

DocketDocket No. 2242.

StatusPublished

This text of 16 P.2d 189 (People v. Wallen) 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. Wallen, 16 P.2d 189, 127 Cal. App. 542, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 356 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

CONREY, P. J.

The defendant has been convicted on both counts of an information which, in the first count, charged violation of the provisions of section 288a of the Penal Code, and in the second count charged the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

As applied to the record in this action, the grounds of appeal stated in the brief for appellant are frivolous. The cause was tried before the court without a jury. The court did not err in declining to go out and view the premises described in the evidence as being the place where the offenses were committed. 'The court did not commit any error in taking the testimony of the witness Romer concerning the presence of an alcoholic odor in the breath of the boy with whom the offense was committed; and it does not appear that any objection was made to the reception of that evidence.

The court did not err in finding the defendant guilty on both counts of the information. While the second count described the same transaction as that set forth in the first count, it also contained further specifications of acts which *544 would constitute contribution to delinquency of the minor and which were not involved in the transaction described in the first count. The defendant was not found 1 ‘ guilty of two crimes composed of but one act”. (For discussion of similar question see People v. Snyder, 74 Cal. App. 138 [239 Pac. 705].)

The foregoing statements cover, in substance, all of the grounds of appeal presented on behalf .of the defendant.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed and the order denying motion for new trial is affirmed.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

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

CONREY, P. J.

The defendant has been convicted on both counts of an information which, in the first count, charged violation of the provisions of section 288a of the Penal Code, and in the second count charged the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

As applied to the record in this action, the grounds of appeal stated in the brief for appellant are frivolous. The cause was tried before the court without a jury. The court did not err in declining to go out and view the premises described in the evidence as being the place where the offenses were committed. 'The court did not commit any error in taking the testimony of the witness Romer concerning the presence of an alcoholic odor in the breath of the boy with whom the offense was committed; and it does not appear that any objection was made to the reception of that evidence.

The court did not err in finding the defendant guilty on both counts of the information. While the second count described the same transaction as that set forth in the first count, it also contained further specifications of acts which *544 would constitute contribution to delinquency of the minor and which were not involved in the transaction described in the first count. The defendant was not found 1 ‘ guilty of two crimes composed of but one act”. (For discussion of similar question see People v. Snyder, 74 Cal. App. 138 [239 Pac. 705].)

The foregoing statements cover, in substance, all of the grounds of appeal presented on behalf .of the defendant.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed and the order denying motion for new trial is affirmed.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 P.2d 189, 127 Cal. App. 542, 1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wallen-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack