Russell

People v. Russell

Good Law
131 Cal. App. 646·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 830·21 P.2d 959
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 9, 1933Docket No. 1724.California247 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Defendant was charged upon three counts with violations of section 288 of the Penal Code and with a prior conviction of a felony in the state of Texas. He was convicted on all the charges with the exception of one of the counts, and has appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial and the judgment entered on the verdict.

No objection is made to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges of violations of the sections of the Penal Code, but it is claimed that section 969b of that code, making certain records evidence of a prior conviction, violates the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.

As shown by the following there is no merit in this contention: 16 Cor. Jur., Criminal Law, secs. 3161, 3162, pp. 1343, 1344; 12 Cor. Jur., Constitutional Law, sec. 879, pp. 1205, 1206; People v. Sierp, 116 Cal. 249, 251 [ 48 Pac. 88 ]; West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258 [24 Sup. Ct. 650, 48 L. Ed. 965]; Mobile J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35 [31 Sup. Ct. 136, 55 L. Ed. 78 , Ann. Cas. 1912A, 463, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 226]; People v. Sickles, 156 N. Y. 541 [ 51 N. E. 288 ],

The judgment and order are affirmed.

A petition for a rehearing…

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.