Legal Opinion

People v. Norman

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 16, 1923No. Crim. No. 950PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

The defendants were convicted of operating an automobile upon the public highways without the own er’s consent, a felony. The court denied their motion for a new trial and pronounced judgment, from which this appeal was taken. The ground urged for reversal is that the defendants were not legally committed by a magistrate.

The proceedings upon which they rely are as follows: The prosecution was begun in the usual manner and after a preliminary examination before a magistrate the defendants were held to answer for “driving an automobile without the owner’s consent. ’ ’ An information was filed…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ex Parte FowlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. BomarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  2. Burnett v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Currie v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. In Re KepfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API