Sliger

People v. Sliger

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 464·1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 50·120 P. 40
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 15, 1911Crim. No. 212.California777 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

Defendant was convicted upon an information charging him with the offense defined in section 288 of the Penal Code. He appeals from the judgment and an order of the court denying his motion for a new trial.

A general demurrer was interposed to the information and by the court overruled. While the ruling is assigned as error, counsel for appellant state that they “submit it without argument or comment.” We are unable to perceive wherein the court erred in the ruling. The information is in the language of the statute and free from the defects pointed out by this court in the case of People v. Grinnell, 9 Cal. App. 239 , [ 98 Pac. 681 ], where the information purported to charge a like offense.

When the ease was called for trial, on June 12, 1911, defendant moved for a continuance on the ground of the absence of material witnesses, and in support of his motion caused to be read and filed his own affidavit. The motion was denied, and this ruling is assigned as error. The affidavit is vague, indefinite and not such as would justify this court in holding that there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the application. While it sufficiently shows the…

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.