People v. Hall
Citations
- 94 Cal. 595
- 30 P. 7
- 1892 Cal. LEXIS 736
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Burglary—Information — Intent to Commit Grand and Petit Larceny—Single Offense. — An information charging a defendant with entering a dwelling-house with intent “ to commit grand and petit larceny, ” sufficiently conforms to the requirements of sections 950, 951, and 952 of the Penal Code, and charges but one offense.</p> <p>Id. — Intent Need not be Consummated — Double Intent. — The wrongful entry of a house with intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any felony, constitutes burglary, and the offense is complete when the entry is made, whether the intent be afterwards consummated or not. An entry with intent to commit two or more felonies constitutes but one burglary.</p> <p>Id. — Conjunctive Allegation of Intent — Alternative Proof. — Under an information for burglary, charging an intent to commit grand and petit larceny, the prosecution need only prove that the defendant entered the building with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny.</p> <p>Id. —Evidence — Declaration of Guilt by Another. — Upon a prosecution for burglary, where it was shown that the defendant and another person were arrested for the offense, and that the other person was mortally wounded while trying to escape, the refusal of the court to allow evidence to be introduced by the defendant to show that the wounded man, when dying, told the physician that be himself was the guilty party, and that the defendant was innocent, is not error, whether the evidence be considered as a dying declaration or as a confession.</p> <p>Id. —Dying Declarations. —Dying declarations are admissible in evidence only where the death of the deceased is the subject of the trial, and the circumstances of the death are the subject of the declaration.</p> <p>Id. — Hearsay Evidence. — In a prosecution for crime, the declaration of another person that he committed the crime is not admissible. Proof of such declaration is mere hearsay evidence, and is always excluded, whether the party making it be d
Judges: Belcher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. FaillaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1966-05-16· cited 157×
- People v. SpriggsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1964-02-25· cited 111×
- Weber v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa· 1915-03-19· cited 55×
- People v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1937-05-27· cited 45×
- People v. KittrelleCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1951-02-05· cited 37×
- State v. MacUmberArizona Supreme Court· 1976-01-13· cited 32×
- People v. LoveCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1977-12-15· cited 28×
- People v. SartoriMichigan Supreme Court· 1912-01-23· cited 23×
- Tillman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1914-03-30· cited 18×
- People v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1989-10-13· cited 16×
- State v. NistWashington Supreme Court· 1911-11-25· cited 16×
- People v. SandersCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1990-05-29· cited 12×
- State v. WestSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1893-05-15· cited 12×
- People v. ShermanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-04-11· cited 5×
- Royal Ins. Co. v. TaylorFourth Circuit· 1918-10-11· cited 5×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Boyce v. California Stage Co.California Supreme Court· 1864-07-01· cited 59×
- Kelly v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1889-03-18· cited 36×
- People v. Fong Ah SingCalifornia Supreme Court· 1883-10-26· cited 28×
- People v. MilneCalifornia Supreme Court· 1882-01-24· cited 10×
- People v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1866-10-15· cited 7×
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.