Legal Opinion
People v. Bales
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 3, 1974No. Crim. 11927PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ELKINGTON, J.
Defendant Daniel Earl Bales, Jr., admitted by his “guilty” plea the commission of an armed robbery, and then entered an additional plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” (See Pen. Code, §§ 1016, 1026.) A jury, by a division of 10 to 2, found him to have been sane at the time of the commission of the offense. Judgment of conviction was thereupon entered, from which judgment Bales appeals.
His first contention is that the “jury’s verdict was invalid, since it was not unanimous.”
The People respond in this manner: “Since the issue of insanity is a totally different one…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Johnson v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Apodaca v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- In Re FranklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- People v. HickmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. Superior Court (John D.)California Court of Appeal · 1979
- People v. FloresCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- People v. HernandezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. HernandezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000