People v. Marshall
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of conviction and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Rooney, J. An application was made to this Court upon a writ of habeas corpus to be admitted to bail, after conviction, and denied, on the authority of Ex parte Smallman, 54 Cal. 35, and Ex parte Marks, 49 id. 681.
1Opinion of the Court
ROSS, J.:
The defendants were accused and convicted of the crime of taking a girl named Helen Armand, under eighteen years of age, from the custody and without the consent of her mother, for the purpose of prostitution. If the testimony on the part of the State was true, there was ample proof of the “taking” of the girl within the meaning of the statute under which the prosecution was had, and for the purpose charged. Neither the language nor the intent of the statute requires that the “ taking” should be by force, but both are satisfied if it is accomplished by improper solicitations or…
2Cited by14 opinions
- People v. TewksburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- People v. MowerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- People v. HardyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- People v. CondleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- Ex parte BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.