People v. Williams
THE PEOPLE v. JOHN E. WILLIAMS
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- James D. Thornton (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 — Thornton
Thornton, J.:
We have examined the information in this case, and consider it good. The acts constituting the offense are stated in ordinary and concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended. (Penal Code, § 950.) Every person of ordinary intelligence understands what the crime against nature with a human being is.
We find no error in the instruction to which our attention is called, and the judgment and order are affirmed.
Sharpstein, J., and Morrison, C. J., concurred.
Cited by
- People v. Paz B265251 · 2017-04-14
- People v. Martinez Crim. 14628 · 1986-12-19
- People v. Gann Crim. 3009 · 1968-02-29
- People v. Daniel · 1959-02-16
- People v. Smith Crim. 2435 · 1953-05-08
- People v. Battilana Crim. 1784 · 1942-06-11
- People v. Boljat Crim. 2083 · 1940-01-19
- In Re Rankin Crim. No. 860. · 1919-07-15
- People v. Erwin Crim. No. 41. · 1906-11-09