People v. Haney

California Court of Appeal Aug 7, 1929 No. Docket No. 1083.Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the information sufficiently charged the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, that the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, and that any error in jury instructions was not prejudicial.

Issues

Whether the information sufficiently stated the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance due to an absent witness.
Whether the jury instructions regarding the tendency of the defendant's acts to cause delinquency were prejudicial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the absence of a statutory definition, the term ‘intoxicating liquor’ is understood to include any liquor intended for use as a beverage or capable of being so used which contains such a proportion of alcohol that it will produce intoxication”

“Under all the circumstances, it cannot be held that the denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion.”

“It may be conceded that, as an instruction to a jury, the italicized words tend to confuse and the use thereof should be avoided, but under the facts of this case the defendant was not prejudiced thereby.”

FINCH, P. J.

The information herein charges: “That . . . the said Ray Haney did, wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell intoxicating liquor to one Kelton Blurton,

[297]

which said act then and there tended to cause and encourage said Kelton Blurton to come under the provisions of subdivision 8 and subdivision 11 of section 1 of the Juvenile Court Law; and then and there tended to cause and encourage said Kelton Blurton to become a person who habitually uses intoxicating’ liquors and tended to cause and encourage said Kelton Blurton to become one Avho would lead an idle and dissolute life; that said Kelton Blurton Avas then and there a minor under the age of twenty-one years.”

The defendant demurred to the information on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense” and that it contains “matters which if true would constitute a legal defense.” The second ground may be dismissed from consideration as manifestly without merit. The demurrer was overruled and the defendant was found guilty. This appeal is from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.

Appellant contends that the information fails to state facts sufficient to constitute an offense because it does not allege that the liquor in question contained one-half of one per cent or more of alcohol, that the liquor was fit for beverage purposes, or that it was delivered .to the minor. Section 4 of the National Prohibition Act [27 U. S. C. A., sec. 4] defines the phrase “intoxicating liquor” as including all liquors “containing one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol by volume which are fit for use for beverage purposes.” If that act governs, as appellant seems to contend, it Avas unnecessary to set forth in the information the statutory definition of the term “intoxicating liquor” used therein.

(People

Norcross,

71 Cal. App. 2, 6 [234 Pac. 438].) “In the absence of a statutory definition, the term ‘intoxicating liquor’ is understood to include any liquor intended for use as a beverage or capable of being so used which contains such a proportion of alcohol that it will produce intoxication when imbibed in such quantities as it is practically possible for a man to drink.” (33 C. J. 491.) It thus appears that appellant’s first two objections to the information are without merit.

People v. Haney

AI Brief

FINCH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief