Legal Opinion

People v. Briley

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 3, 1935No. Crim. 2753PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRICKE, J., pro tem.

Appeal from the judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial.

Appellant was charged and convicted of having committed upon his two daughters, aged seventeen and nineteen years, the offense described in section 288a of the Penal Code.

Appellant contends that his conviction rests solely upon the testimony of the two daughters, who under the evidence were obviously accomplices, without the corroboration required by section 1111 of the Penal Code. The testimony of each of the daughters was that, in addition to the specific act constituting a violation of section 288a, the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. People v. TannerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. People v. KempleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. People v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  4. People v. SnyderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  5. People v. BonillaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. People v. GriffinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. People v. TeitelbaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. People v. BarclayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  4. People v. ColemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. State v. KeckonenMontana Supreme Court · 1938

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API