People v. White
Citations
- 34 Cal. 183
Syllabus
<p>Constitutionality of Section Seventy-Eight of the Act in ¡Relation to Chimes and Punishments.—The seventy-eighth section of the Act concerning crimes and punishments, providing for the punishment of counterfeiting money, etc., is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, or the laws of Congress made in pursuance thereof.</p> <p>Indictment—Sufficiency of.—An indictment is sufficient in substance if it describes the offense charged in the language of the statute by which it is created or defined.</p> <p>Section Seventy-Eight of the Statute in ¡Relation to Crimes and Punishments Construed.—To constitute the crime of knowingly having in possession counterfeiting tools, implements, etc., as created by the seventy-eighth section of the statute in relation to crimes and punishments, it is not only necessary to prove the known possession thereof by the defendant, but that such possession was with criminal intent.</p> <p>Idem.—To constitute crime there must be a joint operation of act and criminal intent, or criminal negligence.</p> <p>Construction of Statutes.—To determine the true interpretation of the terms of a doubtful or ambiguous section, it is proper to read it in connection with others in the same Act dealing with the same general subject.</p> <p>Settlement of Bills of Exceptions in Criminal Cases.—The provisions of section four hundred and thirty-five of the Criminal Practice Act, prescribing the time within which bills of exceptions shall be tendered and settled are directory.</p> <p>Sufficiency of Bills of Exceptions.—A bill of exceptions founded upon the allowance of a question stated, to which objection is made, which does not contain the answer thereto, is fatally defective.</p> <p>Proof of Criminal Intent.—On the trial of a defendant for the crime of knowingly having in his possession counterfeiting tools and implements, it is competent, for the purpose of showing the criminal intent of such possession, for the people to prove that the defend
Judges: Sanderson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In Re DixonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1953-12-15· cited 363×
- People v. FranzCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2001-05-10· cited 68×
- People v. ButlerIdaho Supreme Court· 1869-01-15· cited 30×
- People v. SheldonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-01-28· cited 27×
- People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-07-01· cited 17×
- Che Gong v. StearnsOregon Supreme Court· 1888-04-16· cited 17×
- People v. RussellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-12-04· cited 16×
- People v. GrosofskyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1946-02-08· cited 12×
- People v. SavercoolCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-12-06· cited 11×
- State v. BardwellMississippi Supreme Court· 1895-03-15· cited 8×
- Pueblo v. Díaz BreijoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1969-03-18· cited 8×
- Southern Railway Co. v. Railroad CommissionIndiana Supreme Court· 1913-01-03· cited 7×
- Baender v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1919-10-06· cited 7×
- Baird v. DuaneCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-06-15· cited 4×
- State v. McMahanIdaho Supreme Court· 1937-01-16· cited 3×
- Rivera v. SepúlvedaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1917-05-04· cited 2×
- People v. SeoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2020-05-12
- People v. Díaz BreijoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1969-03-18
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.