Legal Opinion

People v. Bispham

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 2, 1938No. Crim. 1615PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPullen, P. J.

Defendant herein was accused by the grand jury of arson; of burning insured property, and of wilful and malicious burning of property as defined in section 448 (a) of the Penal Code.

After arraignment and trial before a jury, a verdict was returned finding defendant not guilty of arson, but guilty of wilful and malicious burning of property, and also guilty of burning insured property.

The court granted a motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence, was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. From this order the People prosecute this appeal.

On the afternoon of July 4, 1937, a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. SimpsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  2. People v. JenkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. People v. BeagleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. People v. AlvarezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  3. People v. HolmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. People v. HanksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. People v. CastroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

4 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