People v. Maurin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. Defendant’s instruction No. 3, referred to in the opinion, declared that “the mere signing of Dr. De Derky’s name by the defendant was not a personation of him. The defendant must have assumed to be the person known as Dr. De Derky.” The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
Defendant was informed against and convicted under subdivision 2 of section 529 of the Penal Code. That portion of said section which is material here is as follows: “Every person who falsely personates another, and in such assumed character, either,— .... 2. Verifies, publishes, acknowledges, or proves, in the name of another person, any written instrument with intent that the same may be recorded, delivered, and used as true, .... is punishable,” etc. The particular charge in the information was, that the defendant falsely personated one Dr. F. F. De Derky, and in such assumed character,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- People v. RathertCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Collier v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- People v. VaughnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Lee v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.California Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. CasarezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.