Legal Opinion

People v. Haines

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 5, 1975No. Crim. No. 7029PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GARDNER, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of selling a substance in lieu of a restricted dangerous drug (Health & Saf. Code, § 11917, now Health & Saf. Code, § 11382).

The sole issue on appeal is whether this violation requires a specific intent to substitute a substance in place of a restricted dangerous drug.1

In an opinion which appeared briefly in the advance sheets, we pointed out the hopeless conflict between the decisions of the Courts of Appeal as to whether this crime requires a specific or a general intent. We held it was a general intent crime.

The Supreme Court granted a hearing…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. People v. HicksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. People v. NorthernCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. People v. MedinaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  5. People v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. McDanielCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  2. People v. LechlinskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  3. People v. McDonald CA1/3California Court of Appeal · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API