Legal Opinion

People v. Bell

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 30, 1929No. Docket No. 1747PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

The defendant was charged by information filed by the district attorney of Orange County with the crime of statutory rape. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The appellant assigns four reasons for reversal, as follows:

1. That the court erred in restricting the cross-examination of the complaining witness, and of her father.

2. That the trial judge was guilty of misconduct.

3. That the court gave an erroneous instruction.

4. That the district attorney was guilty of misconduct.

We…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. People v. CasanovaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. People v. HaughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  2. People v. HurlburtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  3. People v. VaughanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. People v. O'MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. People v. SmittcampCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

5 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