Legal Opinion

People v. Cimar

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 15, 1932No. Docket No. 1227PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

The defendant was convicted of pandering in violation of the Statutes of 1911, page 9, 1 Deering’s General Laws of 1931, page 819, Act 1906. The information charges that he did “wilfully and unlawfully and feloniously procure for a female person ... a place as an inmate of a house of prostitution”.

The appellant contends the verdict is not supported by the evidence for the reason that the female in question was not procured to become an inmate of a house of prostitution against her will, but upon the contrary that she voluntarily entered and remained in the house. It is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. RoderigasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  2. People v. BurnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. People v. MontgomeryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. People v. CourtneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  3. People v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. People v. MitchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. People v. CharlesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963

8 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