Defendants were convicted under Cal. Penal Code § 182 of conspiracy to commit acts injurious to the public health, including practicing medicine without a license. Defendants appealed the convictions and denial of a new trial.

Defendants contended that certain statutory provisions were so unconstitutionally vague as to fail as a definition of criminal conduct. The court held that (1) the statutes under which defendants were convicted, as well as the indictments returned, were sufficient to give defendants notice of the criminal acts of which they were charged, (2) the jury having been fully and properly instructed, a general verdict was mandatory under Cal. Penal Code § 1150, (3) the corporate documents were properly admitted into evidence, (4) prosecution expert testimony was properly received, (5) proof of fraud was not essential to establish the conspiracy to commit EEOC lawyer acts injurious to the public health, and (6) there was no basis for finding that defendants were not given a speedy and fair trial.

The court affirmed the convictions and denial of new trials.

Petitioner liquor licensee challenged three rulings from the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board (California), which affirmed the suspension of petitioner's license for beer and wine sales.

Petitioner's liquor license was suspended based upon a multi-count accusation of permitting underage persons to consume alcoholic beverages on the premises. Petitioner contended that he should not have been penalized for permitting underage consumption on the premises because he had done all he could do to prevent such consumption. On appeal, the court found that although Cal. Civ. Code § 51 prohibited discrimination in serving persons over 18, petitioner could have segregated persons between the ages of 18 and 21 in his establishment if underage consumption could not otherwise be controlled. The court concluded that petitioner created an atmosphere conducive to the use of alcohol by persons between 18 and 21. The court held that petitioner did not carry out his legal duties if he had knowledge of underage drinking and failed to prevent underage drinking. The court, noting that petitioner's preventative measures were not a complete defense to the violations, remanded in part for reconsideration of the license suspension. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

The administrative rulings that affirmed the suspension of petitioner's license for beer and wine sales were affirmed in part because petitioner violated state law when underage consumption occurred in his establishment. The suspension of petitioner's license was remanded for reconsideration.