People v. Burke (1868) · DecisionDepot

People v. Burke

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1868Published

Before: Rhodes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An indictment is sufficient if it charges the offense in the language of the governing statute, and a defendant is not entitled to a continuance absent a showing of sufficient diligence.

Issues

Whether the indictment was legally sufficient.
Whether the defendant demonstrated sufficient diligence to warrant a continuance.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The indictment is sufficient. The offense is charged in the words of the statute defining the crime of which the defendant was accused.”

“The affidavit of the defendant does not show sufficient diligence on his part to entitle him to a continuance.”

Synopsis

Indictment—Sufficiency of.—Where the charging part of an indictment for rape was in the words of the statute defining that offense : held, sufficient.

By the Court, Rhodes, J.: The indictment is sufficient. The offense is charged in the words of the statute defining the crime of which the defendant was accused. (People v. Martin, 32 Cal. 91; People v. English, 30 Cal. 216; People v. Garcia, 25 Cal. 531.)

The affidavit of the defendant does not show sufficient diligence on his part to entitle him to a continuance. (People v. Williams, 24 Cal. 31.)

Judgment affirmed.

People v. Burke

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief