People v. Ennis
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. J. A. Plummer, A. H. Carpenter, and R. W. Dodge, for Appellant. Tirey L. Ford, Attorney-General, A. A. Moore, Jr., Deputy Attorney-General, A. H. Ashley, District Attorney, and George F. McNoble, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
The defendant was convicted of per-The jury, and appeals from the judgment. No evidence is brought up, and the defendant relies for a reversal solely on the alleged insufficiency of the indictment.
It is true that the indictment is not well constructed, and-would not be held good in jurisdictions where there is not tolerated such want of precision and particularity of statement in pleadings as our Penal Code allows. Nevertheless, we think that under the provisions of sections 950, 959, 960, 966, and 1258 of the Penal Code the indictment in the case at bar is not insufficient to support the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- People v. De CarloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- People v. DunlapCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- People v. FitzgeraldMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- People v. HuntCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Agar v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1911
- People v. HatchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- People v. BarryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Gray v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
- Loudermilk v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.