Legal Opinion

People v. Quisenberry

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 20, 1957No. Crim. 5851PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, P. J.

Having been convicted on two counts of violating section 503 of the Vehicle Code, defendant, a youth of 18 years, was referred to the California Youth Authority for acceptance or rejection. He appealed from such judgment and from the order denying him a new trial, and now demands a reversal on the grounds that the evidence was not sufficient; the trial court erred in its rulings and in giving instructions and the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct.

Facts Are Sufficient

While contention is made that the corpus delicti was not established, a discussion of that claim will be…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. People v. NewlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. People v. RiserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. People v. PeeteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  4. People v. PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  5. People v. CitrinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. FreytasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  2. Carlos Yammon Pena v. The State of WyomingWyoming Supreme Court · 2013
  3. People v. FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. State v. ChesnutUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  5. People v. HollowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960

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