Legal Opinion

People v. Cessena

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 27, 1937No. Crim. 410PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

The defendant, who had been convicted of violating section 288 of the Penal Code, moved for a new trial. The motion was granted. The trial court specified that the motion was granted on' the grounds of errors of law and insufficiency of the evidence, both of which were urged by the defendant in support of the motion. Prom the order granting the motion the People appeal.

Appellant particularly complains that, on the hearing of the motion, the trial court erroneously admitted certain evidence consisting of an affidavit and the testimony of a member of the jury before whom the action was tried.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. People v. FerlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Smith v. RoyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. People v. CanfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. People v. KnutteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Olinger v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. People v. SarazzawskiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. People v. RobargeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  3. People v. NavarroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. People v. ToddCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. People v. WashingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

4 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