People v. Haynes
California Court of Appeal
1Dissent
LAZAR, J., pro tem.*
I dissent from the opinion of the court insofar as it undertakes to justify inferences of knowledge, dominion and control necessary to a finding of possession of the marijuana found under the house and would reverse the judgment of conviction.
Preliminarily, I agree with the holding of the majority opinion that there was no error in refusal of the instruction requested by the defendant. I also agree that the defendant did not make out a case of prejudicial misconduct in the technical sense with respect to the remarks of the district attorney in his opening statement to the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- People v. NewlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- People v. RedrickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- People v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- People v. HoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- People v. HancockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.