People v. Watson

14 P. 97, 72 Cal. 402, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 547
California Supreme Court·Decided May 31, 1887·No. No. 20282·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Temple, J.

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny of a purse. The information charges larceny from the person of one Lizzie Golden, and that the property taken was the personal property of Lizzie Golden.

On the trial, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that if they find the said Lizzie Golden at the time of the larceny was a married woman, and that the purse was bought with the money of her husband, they should acquit the defendant. The court not only refused the instruction, but gave instructions of an exactly opposite effect.

Section 956, Penal Code, seems to settle this appeal:—

When an offense involves the commission of, or the attempt to commit, a private injury, and is described with sufficient certainty in other respects to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured, or intended to be injured, is not material.”

In this case, there can be no question whatever, as to the sufficiency of the description to identify the act.

The order and judgment are affirmed.

McFarland, J., McKinstry, J., Paterson, J., Sharp-stein, J., Thornton, J., and Searls, C. J., concurred.

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

People v. Watson, 14 P. 97, 72 Cal. 402, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 547 (Cal. 1887).

14 P. 97 (People v. Watson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Foster
243 P. 667 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
Lucas v. State
121 N.E. 274 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1918)
Wolff v. City of Denver
20 Colo. App. 135 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1904)
People v. Nunley
75 P. 676 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
State v. Rathbone
67 P. 186 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1901)
People v. Anderson
22 P. 139 (California Supreme Court, 1889)