People v. Pillsbury
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
SHAW, J. pro tern.
After a trial by the court sitting without a jury, the defendant was found guilty of grand theft of an automobile. He now appeals from the judgment, presenting as his sole point on appeal the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding of guilt. This contention must be sustained.
The automobile in question was owned by Carl R. Menikheim, hereinafter referred to, following the witnesses, as “Carl.” He was called into military service in April, 1942, and left the automobile in charge of his fiancee, Miss Dorothy Jerome. She did not use it,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- People v. PayneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- People v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- People v. CoonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kincaid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- People v. EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Charles Nelson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1955
- People v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- People v. JaquesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.