People v. Davis
Citations
- 97 Cal. 194
- 31 P. 1109
- 1893 Cal. LEXIS 509
Syllabus
<p>'Criminal Law—Larceny—Evidence — Ownership op Stolen Property — Possession. — Proof that property which a defendant is charged with stealing was in the possession of the prosecutrix at the time of the taking is sufficient evidence of the ownership by her.</p> <p>‘Id.—Information — Taking against Will of Owner. — It is not necessary to allege, in an indictment or information for larceny, that the property was taken against the will of the owner. Consent of the owner to the taking is matter simply of defense, and the absence of it does not enter into a prima facie case, and need not be averred or proved by the ■ prosecution.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the fact that the taken property was in possession of the victim was sufficient to show ownership
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Garoutte
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. OldhamCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-03-21· cited 41×
- Luther M. Powell v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1969-06-11· cited 25×
- People v. RomanoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1961-12-01· cited 18×
- State v. RathboneIdaho Supreme Court· 1901-12-16· cited 15×
- State v. PatchenNevada Supreme Court· 1913-10-15· cited 8×
- Marley v. StateArizona Supreme Court· 1914-04-27· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.