Legal Opinion

People v. Wong Fook Sam

California Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1905No. Crim. No. 1183PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Henry C. Dibble & Dibble, and Edgar D. Peixotto, for Appellant. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, C. N. Post, Assistant Attorney-General, and George D. Collins, for Respondent.

1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.

The defendant was convicted of perjury, and appeals from, the judgment. There is no bill of exceptions, the appeal being on the judgment-roll alone.

The only point made for reversal is, that the court erred in instructing the jury as follows, viz.: ‘ ‘ The only question for you to determine is, was it true or false. ... If you are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt by the testimony of two witnesses, or by the testimony of one witness and corroborating circumstances, that the testimony given in that trial was false, your verdict in that case would be ‘We, the jury, find the defendant guilty…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. Von TiedemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. People v. RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. People v. MendenhallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. People v. TorresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  5. People v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In Re LindleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. People v. RosotoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. State v. OlsonWashington Supreme Court · 1979
  4. People v. WahlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Green v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

3 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