People v. Poo On

California Court of Appeal Sep 7, 1920 No. Crim. No. 523.Published

Before: Nicol

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for practicing medicine without a license, holding that the information was sufficient, the verdict form was proper, evidence of similar acts was admissible to show intent, the admission of a deposition was within the trial court's discretion, and jury instructions did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

Issues

Whether the information sufficiently charged a violation of the State Medical Practice Act.
Whether the verdict form was legally sufficient.
Whether evidence of other similar acts was admissible to prove intent and motive.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a deposition of an absent witness.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This sufficiently charges a violation of section 17 of the Medical Practice Act (Stats. 1913, p. 734), and is not open to the criticism that it seeks to impute many offenses to defendant”

“The evidence was competent as tending to show the intent and motive of the defendant in the commission of the acts charged in the information and it was not too remote.”

[221]

NICOL, P. J.,

pro tem.

The defendant was tried and convicted in the superior court of Stanislaus County of the crime of practicing medicine without a license, and prosecutes this appeal from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. The information charged the defendant with a violation of section 17 of the State Medical Practice Act (Stats. 1913, p. 734), the said information alléging that: “The said Poo On on or about the nineteenth day of September A. D. 1919, at and in the said county of Stanislaus, state of California, and prior to the filing of this information, did then and there willfully and unlawfully practice, attempt to practice and advertise and hold himself out as practicing a system or mode of treating the sick and afflicted in this state without having at the time of so doing a valid unrevoked certificate from the state board of medical examiners of the state of California.”

The appellant attacks the information on the ground that it sets forth many different offenses which have not been separately stated, and also on the ground that the said information does not substantially conform to the requirements of section 951 of the Penal Code, “in this, that it does not set forth the act or omission charged as an offense. ’ ’

There is no merit in these objections. The charging part of the information is almost in the identical language of the. information that was before this court in

People

T. Wah Hing,

47 Cal. App. 327, [190 Pac. 662], and which information was sustained, the court holding that: "The information in this case is substantially the same as the information that was before the supreme court in

People

Ratledge,

172 Cal. 401, [156 Pac. 455], and which, the court held sufficiently charged a violation of section 17 of the said Medical Practice Act. The court said: ‘The information is attacked upon the ground that it charges the crime of practicing medicine without a certificate from the medical board, ’ the contention being that no such crime is denounced by the law. It is true that the statute does not contain the quoted words, but clearly they are used merely for purposes of general description of the offense as they are followed by the averment that the crime was ‘ committed as follows: That the said T. P. Batledge on the thirtieth day of October, 1914, at, and in the county of Los Angeles, state of California, did

People v. Poo On

AI Brief

NICOL, P. J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief