Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates

THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. THOMAS WATSON, Appellant

         JUDGES: In Bank. Temple, J. McFarland, J., McKinstry, J., Paterson, J., Sharpstein, J., Thornton, J., and Searls, C. J., concurred.

         OPINION

          TEMPLE, Judge

         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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

People v. Watson
(May 31, 1887)