People v. Hicks
THE PEOPLE v. JOHN W. HICKS
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McKee (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 — McKee
McKee, J.
-The only point made by the appellant in this case is, that “ the information fails to allege that the property taken was the property of some person other than the defendant.” But the information contains this averment, viz: “ That the property taken was the personal property in the possession of Frederick Schwartz, * * * and that the same was taken from the person and against the will of him, the said Schwartz.” We think this is a sufficient averment that the property belonged to Schwartz,, and that it was taken from him by the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
Ross, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.
Cited by
- People v. Tufunga S072486 · 1999-11-15
- People v. Wade Crim. 1911 · 1945-11-13
- People v. Dozier Crim. 523 · 1939-10-03
- People v. Cleary Crim. No. 7. · 1905-05-29
- People v. Ammerman Crim. No. 250 · 1897-09-04
- People v. Hanselman No. 20380 · 1888-06-07