Legal Opinion

People v. Pratt

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 6, 1924No. Crim. No. 1169PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

Defendant was accused, tried and convicted of the crime of rape. A motion for a new trial was made and denied. The accusation was based upon section 261, subdivision 1, of the Penal Code condemning acts of sexual intercourse with females under the age of eighteen years. The prosecutrix was of the age of fifteen years, and the act was accomplished upon her with her consent on January 6, 1923. Trial was had in October of the same year, and judgment was pronounced the November following. At the time the offense was charged section 264 of the Penal Code read as follows: “Rape is punishable by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. People v. McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Carlock v. CagnacciCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. People v. VincentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. People v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  2. People v. RossiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  3. People v. PantagesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  4. People v. HarmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  5. People v. BeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

7 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