Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Pudman

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1946No. 967Published

1Dissent

I cannot concur in the majority opinion for the reason that I am of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment of child stealing. The statute defining this offense reads as follows: "43-3202. Stealing or enticing child from parent or guardian. — Every person who maliciously, forcibly or fraudulently takes or entices away any child under the age of seventeen (17) years with intent to detain and conceal such child from its parent, guardian, or other person having the lawful charge of such child, is punishable * * *."

It must be noted that the taking or enticing away…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Keefe v. State of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1937
  2. State v. CoellaWashington Supreme Court · 1891
  3. People v. EdenburgCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. People v. SimmonsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. People v. BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API