People v. Petros
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
The defendant was accused by information of the crime of pandering, as defined by an act of the legislature of 1911 (Stats. 1911, p. 9), and upon being tried on said information was convicted of the crime of an attempt to commit the crime therein charged. (Pen. Code, sec. 1159.)
In due time, the defendant moved for a new trial on the following grounds: “1. . . . 2. . . . 3. That the verdict is contrary to law; 4. That the verdict is contrary to the evidence. ’ ’ The court made an order granting said motion “upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the' verdict.]’
This…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Domico v. CasassaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Newman v. Overland Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
- Otten v. SpreckelsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Warner v. F. Thomas Parisian Dyeing & Cleaning WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- People v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Springer v. Pacific Fruit ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- People v. DriggsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- People v. LombardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- People v. MitchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.