Legal Opinion

People v. Conklin

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 23, 1932No. Docket No. 2115PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, P. J.

Defendant was convicted under a charge that he had violated the provisions of section 288a of the Penal Code, which denounces the crimes sometimes known as fellatio and cunnilingus, the section being couched, however, in English. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial.

The alleged victim of appellant was a boy nearly twelve years of age, and it is contended that he was an accomplice of appellant in the commission of the acts concerning which he testified as a witness for the prosecution. It is also insisted that the testimony…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. People v. CoffeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. People v. RobbinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. People v. KempleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  4. People v. McLeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. People v. MortonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. People v. WestekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. State v. KeckonenMontana Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Perryman v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
  4. People v. BrileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936

6 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