Legal Opinion

People v. Howard

California Supreme Court

Decided January 25, 1888No. 20353PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order refusing a new triaL The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Foote, C.

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny. From the judgment entered in the cause, and an order refusing her a-new trial, she has appealed.

We cannot agree with the defendant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict of the jury-

It is urged further in her behalf that the newly discovered evidence (which she proposed to introduce if granted a new trial) is shown by the affidavits presented on her part to have been such as would unquestionably have resulted, if put before a jury, in her acquittal, and that she could not, by the exercise of due diligence,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. SuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. People v. GonzalesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. People v. Leong Yune GunCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Vélez v. LlavinaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1912
  5. Vélez v. LlavinaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1912

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

Powered by the Exa API