Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Joseph F.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 12, 2001No. A086336Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JONES, P. J.,

Concurring and Dissenting.—I would reverse the finding that appellant committed a battery on a police officer (Pen. Code,1 § 243, subd. (b)) and violated section 148, subdivision (a)(1) (resisting arrest). In my view, there is insufficient evidence that Officer Robert Salas was acting lawfully at the time of the offense. Specifically, there were insufficient facts to justify detaining appellant. However, even if appellant’s detention was unlawful, he may be guilty of a simple battery, as the majority explains, where sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s implied finding…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Illinois v. WardlowSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Brown v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. New Jersey v. T. L. O.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. City of Indianapolis v. EdmondSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  5. Fare v. Tony C.California Supreme Court · 1978

10 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