People v. Ruiz (1919) · DecisionDepot

People v. Ruiz

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Feb 5, 1919 No. Crim. No. 635.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an information charging a violation of the Wyllie local option law is sufficient if it tracks the language of the statute, even if it fails to specify the particular supervisorial district. Furthermore, the court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict and rejecting claims of procedural error.

Issues

Whether an information charging a violation of the Wyllie local option law is fatally defective for failing to designate the specific supervisorial district.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction on the second count of the information.
Whether the trial court committed reversible error in its evidentiary rulings and whether the defendant's claims of misconduct were meritorious.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The offense was charged in the language of the statute, which, as a general rule, is held sufficient.”

“The evidence on behalf of the people, which, as shown by their action, the jury believed, was ample to justify the verdict that defendant was guilty as charged in both counts of the information”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Inyo County, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. Wm. D. Dehy, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

Upon an information containing two counts defendant was convicted of a violation of sections 13 and 14 of the Wyllie local option law (Stats. 1911, p. 599). He appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The first count of the information charged that the defendant, “on the twelfth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, at the said county of Inyo, state of California, . . . and within the boundaries of no-license territory, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, serve, and distribute alcoholic liquors to Oliver Roberts, ’ ’ etc. The second count charged that defendant, on the same day, “at the said county of Inyo, state of California, . . . and within the boundaries of no-license territory, did then and there willfully and unlawfully keep and conduct a place where alcoholic liquors were then and there kept for the purpose of sale and distribution, ...” Appellant attacks both counts, claiming that in neither count are sufficient facts stated to constitute a public offense, and hence his objection to the reception of any evidence in support thereof should have been sustained. Appellant insists that each count of the information should have designated the supervisorial district within which the alleged offense was committed, and that failure so to do renders both counts fatally defective. The offense was charged in the language of the statute, which, as a general rule, is held sufficient.

(Ex parte Anixter,

166 Cal. 762, [138 Pac. 353].) Conceding the better practice in such cases is to describe the supervisorial district or unit within which such infractions are alleged to have occurred, nevertheless, “where the information, merely following the language of the act, charges that the illicit sale was made in no-lieense territory, that ought to be a sufficient statement of the offense to inform the defendant of the particular offense against which he is thus required to defend. ’ ’

(People

Perry, 25

Cal. App. 337, [143 Pac. 798].) The offense charged was not in conducting a place where liquor was kept for sale, nor the selling of the same, but in doing such acts in no-license

[595]

People v. Ruiz

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief