People v. Cleveland
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court, County of San Joaquin. The defendant was charged in the indictment with having stolen a horse, the property of James Furnish, on the 23d of July, 1874. The defendant applied for a continuance on an affidavit, which stated that one David Tyle was a material witness, etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court, County of San Joaquin. The defendant was charged in the indictment with having stolen a horse, the property of James Furnish, on the 23d of July, 1874. The defendant applied for a continuance on an affidavit, which stated that one David Tyle was a material witness, etc. The prosecution, in reply, and against the defendant’s objection, were allowed to introduce affidavits, showing that a warrant had been out for three or four weeks for the arrest of Tyle for the same larceny, and that he had fled and could not be found. On the examination of the defendant before…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
1. There was evidence, exclusive of that of the accomplice, tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the larceny. The fact that on the morning after the larceny, the stolen horse was found in his possession, under the circumstances admitted by the defendant on his examination as a witness, and the further fact that he immediately removed the horse to another place for pasturage, and gave an assumed name, tended to show his complicity in the theft. Moreover, his admissions to the jailer and the District Attorney, tended strongly to implicate him as a…
2Cited by17 opinions
- People v. GriffinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- People v. TinninCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Moody v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1917
- State v. BondIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
- People v. BunkersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.