Legal Opinion

People v. Franquelin

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 17, 1952No. Crim. 4711PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtValles, J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of attempted extortion. He appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. As grounds for reversal he urges (1) it was not shown that Bette Cole, the prosecuting witness whose testimony given at the preliminary examination was read at the trial, could not with due diligence be found within the state; (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict; and (3) the court erred in instructions given and refused.

Penal Code, section 686, provides that in a criminal prosecution the defendant is entitled “to be confronted with the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. People v. NewlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. People v. EggersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. People v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  4. People v. CavazosCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. People v. LavineCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. People v. CamodecaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Hugh Wendell MacDonald v. James A. MusickCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
  3. People v. AstaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. People v. DownerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. People v. GoodmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

15 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