People v. Weir

California Court of Appeal

People v. Weir

159 P. 442, 30 Cal. App. 766, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 101

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 15, 1916

DocketCrim. No. 635.

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 159 P. 442 (People v. Weir) 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. Weir, 159 P. 442, 30 Cal. App. 766, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

In charging the commission of the felony deined by section 476a of the Penal Code, it is not essential to a statement of the facts constituting such offense that the information should allege that the check drawn by the person charged with the offense was presented to the bank. Such in effect was the ruling in the case of People v. Mohr, 157 Cal. 732, [109 Pac. 476]. It follows logically that if such fact was not required to be pleaded against the defendant, it was not necessary to be established against him in order to secure and sustain his conviction.

The criminal intent of the defendant when making and drawing the check in question was an essential element of the *767 offense with which he was charged; and he admitting the act but defending in part upon the ground that it was free from felonious intent, proof of the commission of similar acts, even though they be independent and disconnected, and were committed either before or after the perpetration of the crime charged, was relevant and competent for the purpose of showing guilty intent. (People v. King, 23 Cal. App. 259, [137 Pac. 776].)

The evidence upon the whole sustains the verdict and judgment. The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 14, 1916.

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

THE COURT.

In charging the commission of the felony deined by section 476a of the Penal Code, it is not essential to a statement of the facts constituting such offense that the information should allege that the check drawn by the person charged with the offense was presented to the bank. Such in effect was the ruling in the case of People v. Mohr, 157 Cal. 732, [109 Pac. 476]. It follows logically that if such fact was not required to be pleaded against the defendant, it was not necessary to be established against him in order to secure and sustain his conviction.

The criminal intent of the defendant when making and drawing the check in question was an essential element of the *767 offense with which he was charged; and he admitting the act but defending in part upon the ground that it was free from felonious intent, proof of the commission of similar acts, even though they be independent and disconnected, and were committed either before or after the perpetration of the crime charged, was relevant and competent for the purpose of showing guilty intent. (People v. King, 23 Cal. App. 259, [137 Pac. 776].)

The evidence upon the whole sustains the verdict and judgment. The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on August 14, 1916.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 P. 442, 30 Cal. App. 766, 1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weir-calctapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack