Stevens

People v. Stevens

Good Law
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 613·98 Cal. App. 28·276 P. 155
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 28, 1929Docket No. 1769.California581 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

York, J.

The defendant was convicted of having in his possession and control one still worm, two still caps, one still condenser and one stilling device, all of which articles are alleged to have been designed for use in the manufacture and production of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.

The information, under which the appellant was tried and convicted, is sufficient in that it states facts sufficient to constitute a public offense under the provisions of the “Act relating to stills,” found in Statutes of 1927, page 497.

The venue was amply proved not only by the statement as. to location of a certain ranch, but by reference to certain streets in Ontario, and the location of the property where the still was found with reference to its being in Cucamonga township just outside the city limits of the town of Ontario. The fact that this township and town are wholly within the county of San Bernardino is a fact of which the court can take judicial cognizance. (People v. Wright, 79 Cal. App. 523 [ 250 Pac. 204 ].)

There was sufficient evidence to support the finding of the jury that the defendant was guilty,- as charged. It is not necessary, under the law, that there should be…

Concurring Opinion

Conrey, J.

We concur in the judgment.

We wish to make it clear, however, that in our opinion the word “designed” as used in the statute implies an intention of the defendant to use the prohibited articles for the unlawful purpose described in the statute. This being so, the information charging the offense in the language of the statute is sufficient. We think also that there is in the record sufficient evidence to support the implied finding that the defendant did intend to use the distilling devices referred to in the information in the manufacture and production of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on April 9, 1929, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 25, 1929.

All the Justices present concurred.

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.