Legal Opinion

People v. Raines

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 22, 1944No. Crim. 3817PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial after conviction of grand theft, defendant appeals.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to the People (respondent), and pursuant to the rules set forth in People v. Pianezzi, 42 Cal.App.2d 270, 277 [108 P.2d 685], the essential facts are:

On September 14, 1943, defendant entered into an agreement to sell Miss Brockman, one of the complaining witnesses, and three other ladies a restaurant in the city of Los Angeles for the total sum of $1,250, of which amount $500 was paid defendant in cash. Prior to the execution of the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. People v. DarcyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  2. People v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. People v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. People v. PianezziCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. People v. EpsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. People v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. People v. PlattCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. People v. WootenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  4. People v. PearsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  5. United States v. RubensteinUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1957

14 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