Legal Opinion

People v. England

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 4, 1934No. Crim. No. 2468PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.

From a judgment of conviction of the crime of robbery, as well as from an order by which their motion for a new trial was denied, defendants England and Clensay, who are represented by counsel, and defendant Hoff, who appears in propria persona, have appealed to this court.

It is urged that because of alleged misconduct of the jury the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered. But since none other than inadmissible or hearsay testimony was offered by the defendants to establish any misconduct on the part of any member of the jury, it is clear that the point is without merit.

Appellant…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. People v. YeagerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. People v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. People v. ErnoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. People v. DowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. People v. BoothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix v. GloverArizona Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Department of Mental Hygiene of Cal. v. KirchnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. State v. ThompsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1953
  4. People v. Keith Railway Equipment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  5. Abrams v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

2 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