In Re Garbarini
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPullen, P. J.
This is a proceeding on hateas corpus. Petitioner was arrested and convicted upon a complaint filed in a justice court which designated the offense as “crime of killing a doe, a misdemeanor”, it being therein charged that defendant at a certain time and place within the jurisdiction of the court “did wilfully and unlawfully kill a doe”.
The defendant was by the court tried and found guilty and a judgment was rendered finding the defendant “guilty as charged”.
Petitioner now urges that the complaint as filed did not state a public offense and that the judgment does not state any offense of which…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Ex Parte Tobias WatkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Ex parte MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- People v. EppingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Ex parte KearnyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Ex parte McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re MeisnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- In Re ElsholzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- In re FerrariCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- State v. ZumwaltMontana Supreme Court · 1955
- State v. ZumwaltMontana Supreme Court · 1955