People v. Malgren
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SCOTT, Acting P. J.
Ronald Fred Malgren was convicted by a jury of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). He contends: (1) evidence of dog tracking was improperly admitted; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; (3) the trial court should have instructed sua sponte that dog tracking evidence should be viewed with caution and does not by itself warrant a conviction; and (4) the court should not have instructed on flight.
I
Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the evidence established the following. Teenagers John and Amy Cox returned to their Burlingame *237home one…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- People v. FlannelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- People v. WickershamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- People v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2016
- People v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. WesterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- People v. HousleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- People v. NajeraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.