Legal Opinion

People v. Mathews

California Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 1903No. Crim. No. 966PublishedCited by 33 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of rape, charged with having been committed upon the person of a girl under the age of consent. A motion for a new trial was made and denied. An appeal is taken from the order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial and from the final judgment.

1. The first alleged error assigned by the appellant is, that the court should have allowed certain questions in cross-examination, as to whether the defendant had not given the prosecutrix money or presents, and whether the prosecutrix had not requested the defendant to give her money. Nothing of this nature…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. People v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. People v. MayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. State v. HartleyNevada Supreme Court · 1895
  5. People v. KamaunuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  2. People v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. People v. GrayIllinois Supreme Court · 1911
  4. State v. SlorahSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
  5. Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904

28 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