People v. Miller
The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ALICE A. MILLER Et Al., Appellants
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Sacramento County
- Trial judge
- Peter J. Shields
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Prewett (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Prewett
PREWETT, P. J., pro tem.
An action under the Red-light Abatement Act. The plaintiff had judgment in the trial court and the defendants appeal.
It is urged in support of a reversal that the complaint does not charge the commission of any specific acts constituting the alleged nuisance. The complaint alleges, however, that the premises “were and now are used for the purposes of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution, and upon said premises acts of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution were held and did occur and said premises were and now are a nuisance.” These allegations are sufficient within the purview of the act.
The second point is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings and judgment in that it rests upon the “testimony of a hired, tricky reformer, etc.” While the evidence presents 'the usual characteristics of this class of actions, it cannot be said that the testimony of the chief witness for the prosecution is inherently or otherwise improbable. It presents a straightforward story, abundantly sufficient, if true, to. justify a decree against the defendants. It was peculiarly the province of the trial court to weigh its credibility, and we are satisfied with the conclusions at which it arrived. There is no other point in the case.
The judgment is affirmed.
Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.
Cited by
- Agnew v. City of Los Angeles Civ. 20238 · 1955-07-20