People v. Norman
California Court of Appeal
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
- Ex Parte FowlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. BomarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Burnett v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Currie v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- In Re KepfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932