People v. Buelna
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. gat-ion to excuse or justify by a preponderance of evidence on his part; that is, the killing being proved, the defendant must make out his case in mitigation to excuse or justify by some proof stronger in some appreciable degree than the proof of the prosecution. The burden of proof changes."
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. gat-ion to excuse or justify by a preponderance of evidence on his part; that is, the killing being proved, the defendant must make out his case in mitigation to excuse or justify by some proof stronger in some appreciable degree than the proof of the prosecution. The burden of proof changes." The second instruction given at the request of the prosecution is stated in the syllabus. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
The defendant in this case was accused by information of grand larceny. He was convicted as charged. From the judgment rendered upon the verdict of the jury, and an order denying a new trial, he appeals. He contends that an instruction of the court in reference to the appropriation of lost property by the finder thereof is erroneous. The language complained of is as follows: “One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge or means of *137inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Berry v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
- People v. DevineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Rose v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1912
- People v. CainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- People v. ChesneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.