Legal Opinion

People v. Dukes

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 8, 1934No. Crim. 2565PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCOTT, J., pro tem.

Defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, the information setting out nine overt acts prior to the robbery and, as a tenth overt act, the robbe^ itself. Ledbetter was also charged with a prior felony, robbery, conviction of which he admitted. In a previous case defendants had been charged with committing the identical robbery which is alleged as the tenth overt act in the instant case, and had been tried and acquitted on that charge. They entered pleas in this case of not guilty, former acquittal and once in jeopardy. The jury found against each defendant…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Oliver v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  2. People v. MartinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. People v. ShurtleffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. People v. ClementCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. HessCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. People v. KlinkenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. People v. McNamaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. People v. BellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. People v. EarlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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