Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Bracken 220 Cal. App. 2d 926

← Cases

People v. Bracken

220 Cal. App. 2d 926 Court Second Dist., Div. Two. Decision date 1963-09-30 Docket Crim. No. 9260 English

Delivered by FOX, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 926
34 Cal.Rptr. 71]
[Crim. No. 9260.
Second Dist., Div. Two.
Sept. 30, 1963.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BERTHA LEE BRACKEN, Defendant and Respondent.
Roger Arnebergh, City Attorney, Philip E. Grey, Assistant City Attorney, William E. Doran, Nowland Hong and Charles Luke McKissaek, Deputy City Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jones & Tollefson and Philip F. Jones for Defendant and Respondent.
A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

This case comes to us from the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court. It is in the identical procedural posture as People v. Randazzo, ante, p. 768 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] filed this date, and involves the precise legal question decided in that case. Upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in Randazzo, the order and judgment from which the People have appealed are reversed.

Ashburn, J., and Herndon, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied October 28, 1963, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 27, 1963. Peters, J., and Tobriner, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.