Legal Opinion

People v. Ledbetter

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 28, 1930No. Docket No. 1917PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.

Following their conviction of the crime of bribery, defendants appeal from the judgment as well as from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The only reason suggested by appellants for • a reversal of the judgment is that error was committed by the trial court in its order by which the motion for a new trial was denied.

The dependent circumstances may be' briefly stated as follows: The prosecuting witness,. who was corroborated in his testimony by his wife, and one Betty Pierce, who was employed in the household of the prosecuting witness, tended to show that the alleged offense. was…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. Sing YowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Linforth v. S.F. Gas and Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Waer v. WaerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. People v. GoodwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  5. People v. LakenanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. PaysenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. People v. Charley QuongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. People v. RadzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. People v. RichmondCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. People v. KnewbowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API