People v. Watson
THE PEOPLE v. THOMAS WATSON
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Temple, J.
The defendant was convicted of grand larceny of a purse. The information charges larceny from the person of one Lizzie Golden, and that the property taken was the personal property of Lizzie Golden.
On the trial, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that if they find the said Lizzie Golden at the time of the larceny was a married woman, and that the purse was bought with the money of her husband, they should acquit the defendant. The court not only refused the instruction, but gave instructions of an exactly opposite effect.
Section 956, Penal Code, seems to settle this appeal:— “ When an offense involves the commission of, or the attempt to commit, a private injury, and is described with sufficient certainty in other respects to identify the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured, or intended to be injured, is not material.”
In this case, there can be no question whatever, as to the sufficiency of the description to identify the act.
The order and judgment are affirmed.
McFarland, J., McKinstry, J., Paterson, J., Sharp-stein, J., Thornton, J., and Searls, C. J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.