People v. Gosset
California Supreme Court
" Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
Appellant was convicted of dealing, playing, etc., the game of faro, and appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.
1. We do not think that the indictment charges more than one offense because it uses the words “did deal, play, carry on, and conduct” the said game. “Where a statute enumerates a series of acts, either of which, separately or altogether, may constitute the offense, all of such acts may be charged in a single count, for the reason that, notwithstanding each act may, by itself, constitute the offense, all of them together do no more, and likewise constitute…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. CroninCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- People v. HarroldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- People v. DickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- People v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Ex parte McCarthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
3Cited by35 opinions
- People v. TorresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- People v. ClemettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- State v. WappensteinWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- People v. McClennegenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- State v. TobinWyoming Supreme Court · 1924
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.