People v. McGavock
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
*335Opinion
STEVENS, J.
We hold here as a matter of first impression that the evidentiary rule stated in Penal Code1 section 1111, requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony, does not apply in probation revocation proceedings.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Appellant Michael McGavock was placed on probation following his conviction for willfully inflicting corporal injury. (§ 273.5.) Shortly thereafter, appellant and an accomplice set out to steal refrigerated meat from an Oakland company, Pacific Coast Container. The two men cut holes through two fences, opened up trailers, and unloaded cases…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Armstrong v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
- People v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- People v. GuiuanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. CoffeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- People v. MickleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. O'CONNELLCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- People v. RUBICSCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- People v. MirandaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- People v. Aparicio CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.