Legal Opinion

People v. Rose

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 24, 1938No. Crim. 3089PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.

In an amended information appellant and one John Radcliff were jointly charged with a violation of the State Narcotic Act, for having in their possession a preparation of opium containing “more than two grains of opium to the avoirdupois ounce”. It was also alleged that prior to the commission of the substantive offense charged, appellant had suffered a prior conviction in the United States District Court for violation of the Harrison Narcotic Act, and that pursuant to judgment therein pronounced he served a term of imprisonment therefor in a federal prison.

The language in the amended…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. People v. Tom WooCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. People v. BiggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. In Re RosencrantzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  4. People v. DeysherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  5. People v. HennesseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. People v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. People v. GoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  4. People v. WaltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. People v. PlanaganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

10 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