People v. Joe Joy (1916) · DecisionDepot

People v. Joe Joy

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

California Court of Appeal Mar 1, 1916 No. Crim. No. 335.Published

Before: Burnett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the statute and information were not unconstitutionally broad for including the term "furnish," and that even if they were, the defendant's conviction for giving away liquor remained valid as the error was harmless.

Issues

Whether the statute and information were unconstitutionally broad for including the word "furnish" when the title of the act did not explicitly contain it.
Whether the trial court's instruction and definition of "furnish" constituted reversible error.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The whole consideration as to the word “furnish” may be disregarded as involving nothing more than mere abstract error which could not have prejudiced appellant.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, and from an order denying a new trial. W. A. Anderson, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

BURNETT, J.

Defendant was convicted of the offense charged as follows: "The said Joe Joy, of Woodland, on or about the 20th day of October, 1915, and within the boundaries of the city of Woodland, county of Yolo, state of Cali

[37]

fornia, then and there being, did then and there willfully and unlawfully furnish, distribute and give away alcoholic liquors, and the said city of Woodland then and there being an incorporated city and no-license territory,” etc.

It is not disputed that said city constitutes no-license territory, and that the prosecution was had under section 13 of Statutes of 1911, page 602, providing that “It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, firm, company, association or club, as principal, agent, employee or otherwise, within the boundaries of any no-license territory to sell, furnish, distribute or give away any alcoholic liquors except as provided in section 16 hereof.”

The principal contention of appellant is that said statute and also the information filed by the district attorney are broader than the title of said act permits, and, therefore, unwarranted in and to the extent that each contains the word “furnish.”

The title of said act, as far as necessary to quote here, is: “An act to provide for the regulation of the traffic in alcoholic liquors by establishing local option, . . . making it a penal offense to sell, give away or distribute alcoholic liquors within such territory, with certain exceptions; and providing penalties for such offenses.”

It is settled that the title of an act may be general, and need not embrace “an abstract or catalogue of its contents”:

(Abeel

Clark,

84 Cal. 226, [24 Pac. 383];

Estate of McPhee,

154 Cal. 385, [97 Pac. 878] ;

Pritchard

People v. Joe Joy

AI Brief

Synopsis

BURNETT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief