Legal Opinion

People v. Clinesmith

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 17, 1959No. Nov. 17, 1959PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDavid, J.

Following his conviction of violation of Vehicle Code, section 502, with a prior conviction, defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. Both are alleged to be erroneous and prejudicial, upon the same three grounds.(1) The prior conviction was supported solely by a certified transcript of a judgment in a prior case, wherein the defendant’s name was the same as defendant’s in this case. Although he did take the stand, the defendant did not attempt to rebut this prima facie evidence, and it is sufficient. (People v. Carava (1934), 2 Cal.App.2d 696…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. In Re PorterfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Ex Parte ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. People v. SchmittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  4. Kullman, Salz Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. People v. SeverinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. M. B. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  2. People v. AvilaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. People v. ClinesmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API