Heivner

People v. Heivner

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 768·1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 250·114 P. 411
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 15, 1910Crim. No. 134.California476 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

This appeal invites but brief consideration, as the questions presented involve only familiar and elementary principles.

There is no merit in the contention that the information is insufficient. It follows substantially the language of the statute and it is not obnoxious to just criticism. No demurrer was filed and the only suggestion of infirmity is that there is no positive allegation in the information that the prosecutrix was the sister of defendant. The averment is that “The said John G. Heivner . . . did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously upon the person of one Kate Curless, a sister of the said John G. Heivner,” etc. It is clear that by this allegation the defendant was informed that Kate Curless is his sister, and it could not have been understood in any other way. Even if it were conceded that the allegation is defective, it could be attacked only by special demurrer.

Some claim is made that the confession received in evidence was not shown to be voluntary. But in this appellant is entirely mistaken. The sheriff and the district attorney both testified that no inducement was offered nor coercion used. They related all that occurred at the time, and from their…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.