Legal Opinion

People v. Mazzola

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 1, 1929No. Docket No. 1789PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

The defendant, together with Rafael Cervantes and Orville H. Kilbourne, was charged by information filed by the district attorney of San Bernardino County with the offenses of possession of a still and operating a still, the first count alleging the possession and the second the operation. Cervantes and Kilbourne plead guilty. The jury found the defendant guilty of both counts and he appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

The grounds set up by appellant as reasons for a reversal are four, as follows: (1) “The appellant was tried for two…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. YeagerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. People v. DoleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. People v. ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  4. People v. NikolichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. In Re ChausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. People v. GriffinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. People v. HoytCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. People v. ColtrinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. People v. BenenatoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  5. People v. HurdCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

11 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