Legal Opinion

People v. Hamilton

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 1, 1967No. Crim. 297PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConley, P. J.

The defendant, David Hamilton, admits that he stole a valuable diamond ring from a jewelry store in the City of Tulare, but denies that he had the intention to commit theft when he entered the store, and, therefore, argues that he is not guilty of second degree burglary, the crime of which he was convicted. While, from the ethical standpoint, it is somewhat curious to hear an admission of what would constitute one major felony in the course of denying another, this defense, if established, is legally good. [1] For it is a necessary element of burglary to prove that at the very moment of…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. People v. GouldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  2. People v. GouldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  3. People v. FaillaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
  4. People v. ClayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. People v. BoyceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. MansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  2. People v. LeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  3. People v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  4. People v. EppsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  5. People v. MansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API