Legal Opinion

People v. Walton

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 26, 1929No. Docket No. 1773PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CRAIL, J., pro tem.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of forgery. It is his first contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, made on the day of trial and based on the want of preparation and the absence of material witnesses. However, there is no showing of reasonable diligence on the part of defendant in his affidavit in support of the motion (People v. Ponchette, 30 Cal. App. 399 [158 Pac. 338]; People v. Winters, 125 Cal. 325 [57 Pac. 1067]); and the affidavit fails to state the facts to which the witnesses would testify if present. (People v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. OxnamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. People v. WintersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. People v. FountainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. People v. PonchetteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  5. People v. FroehlichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. PaysenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  2. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  3. People v. HanzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. People v. CurtissAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1931
  5. People v. ShermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

2 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