Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Kelly

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 11, 1939No. Crim. 3180Published

1Dissent

McCOMB, J., Dissenting.

I dissent.

In the present case evidence that defendant in good faith believed at the time of his second marriage that prior thereto he had been divorced from the complaining witness was excluded. This in my view of the law was prejudicial error.

In my opinion the earlier rule announced in People v. Hartman, (1900) 130 Cal. 487 [62 Pac. 823], has been overruled In the Matter of Application of Ahart, (1916) 172 Cal. 762, 764 [159 Pac. 160], The case of People v. Hartman announced the rule that a second marriage under an erroneous assumption that the first marriage had been…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Squire v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Matter of Application of AhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. People v. HartmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Baker v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1910
  5. State v. CainSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1901

10 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