Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Salas

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 18, 1976No. Crim. 27608Published

1DissentDunn, J.

I dissent.

The majority mentions that appropriate instructions on circumstantial evidence were given, but declares they should have been given twice, once with respect to the elements of robbery and once with respect to proof of the intent to inflict great bodily injury. As to the latter, the majority states that a failure to instruct, might have misled the jury. I do not agree that this is so. The giving of an instruction once is sufficient, since instructions, even if correct, should not be unduly emphasized by repetition. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed.) Trial, §§ 209, 210, pp.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. People v. ClowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API