From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Burns

Supreme Court of California
Jun 29, 1883
63 Cal. 614 (Cal. 1883)

Summary

In People v. Burns, 63 Cal. 614, a case identical in principle with that at bar, it was held that the information was sufficient.

Summary of this case from People v. Goldsworthy

Opinion

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Colusa County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         The information is not sufficient. ( People v. Nelson, 58 Cal. 106; Greer v. State, 50 Ind. 267; Commonwealth v. De Jardin, 126 Mass. 46.)

         The charge was erroneous. (People v. Bird, 8 P. C.L.J. 334; Hanks v. Naglee, 54 Cal. 51.)

         Carr & Hatch, for Appellant.

         Attorney-General, for Respondent.


         The information is sufficient. ( People v. Shaber, 32 Cal. 36; Commonwealth v. Barney, 10 Cush. 480.)

         The charge was not prejudicial. ( People v. Cronin, 34 Cal. 191; People v. Girr, 53 Cal. 629.)

         OPINION

          MYRICK, Judge

         In Bank

         The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.          The defendant was accused by the district attorney of the crime of burglary, and the information charged that the accused committed the crime as follows: That he did feloniously and burglariously enter a certain house of one [naming a woman], in which said house she, the said [woman named] did then and there reside, with intent then and there to commit a rape upon the said [woman named].

         Section 261, Penal Code, defines the crime of rape as the act therein named accomplished under either of six sets of circumstances therein set forth. Objection was made to the information in that it did not state under which set of circumstances specified in this section the act was intended by the defendant to be accomplished. We think the information was sufficient. ( People v. Shaber, 32 Cal. 36; People v. Girr, 53 Cal. 629.)

         In the charge to the jury the court read subdivisions 3 and 4 of section 261, above mentioned, as applicable to the case on trial. Subdivision 3 and the first part of subdivision 4 did relate to the case; but there was no testimony to which the latter part of subdivision 4 would be applicable, in that there was no testimony that any intoxicating, narcotic, or anaesthetic substance was administered or attempted to be administered. The defendant alleges that it was error to read the latter part of this subdivision. The entry into the house in the night time, and the use of force and threats in endeavoring to accomplish the act, were in evidence; and upon that evidence the jury was justified in convicting the defendant. It is not apparent that the reading of the clause objected to affected any substantial right of the defendant. ( § 1258, Pen. Code.)

         Judgment and order affirmed.

         ROSS, J., McKEE, J., SHARPSTEIN, J., and THORNTON, J., concurred.


Summaries of

People v. Burns

Supreme Court of California
Jun 29, 1883
63 Cal. 614 (Cal. 1883)

In People v. Burns, 63 Cal. 614, a case identical in principle with that at bar, it was held that the information was sufficient.

Summary of this case from People v. Goldsworthy

In People v. Burns, 63 Cal. 614, defendant was accused by information of feloniously and burglariously entering a certain house with intent to commit rape.

Summary of this case from People v. Blankenship
Case details for

People v. Burns

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, RESPONDENT, v. DENNIS BURNS, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 29, 1883

Citations

63 Cal. 614 (Cal. 1883)

Citing Cases

People v. Padilla

The evidence is clearly sufficient to warrant the conclusion that appellant entered the house for the…

People v. Myers

This rule has been specifically applied in this state. For example, in the case of People v. Burns, 63 Cal.…