People v. Smith
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, P. J.
Defendant-appellant was accused of the crime of violating section 286 of the Penal Code in that he did commit the infamous crime against nature, with an animal. He was tried to the court sitting without a jury and was found guilty. From the judgment and from the order denying his motion for new trial he appeals.
Appellant did not take the stand at his trial and the lone witness for the prosecution, while testifying to copulation, stated that he could not say whether the penetration was vaginal or anal. Appellant contends that in this state of the evidence he is entitled to reversal because the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lanzetta v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- People v. BattilanaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- People v. CarrollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Peterson v. CrosierUtah Supreme Court · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. MartinezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Pueblo v. Santiago VázquezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1967
- People v. CarrierMichigan Court of Appeals · 1977
- People v. Santiago VázquezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1967