Legal Opinion

People v. Horowitz

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 7, 1933No. Docket No. 887PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBishop, J.

At the conclusion of a juryless trial, appellants were convicted of the offense stated in count I of the complaint; count II was dismissed. It is upon the dismissal of count II that appellants pin their hope of a reversal. They contend that if they were not guilty of the charge set forth in the second count, they were not of that contained in the first, and that as the dismissal operated as an acquittal of the one charge, their conviction of the other cannot stand. We find this position untenable.

By three complaints the ten appellants were charged with the same offenses, except for some…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. People v. ClemettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. People v. DegnenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  3. People v. DayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  4. In Re Application of O'ConnorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  5. People v. RanneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. People v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. People v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. People v. TidemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Ward v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  5. People v. KrupaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

17 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