Legal Opinion

The People v. Hinshaw

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 16, 1919No. Crim. No. 463PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

There seems to be no substantial merit in this appeal from a conviction of the crime of forgery. The evidence was amply sufficient to support the verdict. It consisted in part of the confession of the defendant. This was supplemented by the testimony of a witness who positively identified appellant as the one who cashed the check and by the unequivocal denial of the genuineness of the signature by the purported maker or drawer of the instrument. Indeed, appellant does not claim that the verdict lacks sufficient support, but he relies upon certain alleged errors committed by the court in the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. SchaferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. People v. RushingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. People v. BairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. ManleySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
  2. People v. RigneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. People v. CroweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. People v. HudsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Rose v. SheedySupreme Court of Missouri · 1939

7 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