Legal Opinion

People v. Rose

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 16, 1935No. Crim. No. 2739PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

Defendant Rose was charged with and convicted of the crime of issuing a check without sufficient funds in violation of section 476a, Penal Code. The trial was by the court alone, a jury having been regularly waived.

The record shows that on August' 6, 1934, defendant asked one MacIntyre, with whom he had had prior business dealings, to cash a check for him in the amount of $150. At the time of the request, both parties were in the bank with which MacIntyre transacted business, located in Hollywood. The defendant, according to MacIntyre, stated that inasmuch as his bank was in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. Tom WooCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. People v. BeckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. People v. YrigoyenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. People v. YoudersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. People v. RainesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. People v. OsterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. People v. MontgomeryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

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