Legal Opinion

People v. Chutnacut

California Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 1904No. Crim. No. 1059PublishedCited by 16 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County and from an order denying a new trial. N. H. Conklin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

COOPER, C.—

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. He claims that the court erred in denying his motion to postpone, in denying his challenge to a juror, and in regard to instructions given and refused. A motion for the postponement of a case on the ground of the absence of a witness rests very much in the discretion of the trial court. It is only in a plain case of abuse of such discretion that we would interfere. The affidavit on which the motion was based stated that two witnesses, named therein, had been…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. McLeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. People v. CebullaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. People v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. West v. ConantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. County of Mono v. FlaniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. People v. SteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  2. People v. ZarateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. People v. SantosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. James v. HallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. People v. PembrokeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907

11 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