Legal Opinion

People v. Wagner

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 8, 1919No. Crim. No. 853PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBrittain, J.

The appellant was convicted on an information charging burglary by entering “the house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store and building” of Michael Logue, in San Francisco. The only question is regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to show burglarious intent.

Logue, the complaining witness, operated a saloon. Back of the saloon ran a passageway, on which opened the living apartments he occupied with his wife. From the passageway also opened a washroom, from which there was a door to an alleyway. Evidently there was another door leading either from the passageway or the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. People v. BrittainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. People v. EmersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. People v. SwalmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. People v. NoonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. LylesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. State v. BullIdaho Supreme Court · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API