People v. Von Moltke
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtYork, J.
The principal question raised by appellant in this matter is that the jury was allowed to separate, after they had been partially instructed by the trial judge. The record discloses the fact that, after the arguments in the case had been concluded, and the' judge had started to instruct the jury and had given several instructions, the matter was continued, with the usual admonition, until the next day; that on the next day the trial judge proceeded to complete his instructions to the jury, and the matter was then submitted to the jury for decision.
The appellant evidently contends that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. ZuvelaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Bassi v. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
- People v. MartinezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- People v. PowellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- People v. OkomotoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. BraxtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- People v. PollockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- People v. DalyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- People v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.