Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Golden Gate University School of Law

Jesse Carter Opinions

Homicide

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

People V. Wilburn, Jesse W. Carter Feb 1958

People V. Wilburn, Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Although defendant engaged in a shoot-out with a retired police officer who walked in on a robbery, the evidence pointed to the conclusion that a bullet fired from defendant's gun killed a decedent. Thus, he was guilty of first-degree murder.


People V. Granados [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter Dec 1957

People V. Granados [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Defendant was entitled to modification of his conviction of first degree murder to second degree murder because no competent evidence established that he engaged in sexual molestation of a child under the age of 14.


People V. Moore [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter May 1957

People V. Moore [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

A verdict of first-degree murder was proper under the felony murder doctrine because the evidence showed that the killing occurred in the course of an attempted rape.


People V. Hardenbrook, Jesse W. Carter Apr 1957

People V. Hardenbrook, Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

The prior consistent statement of a witness was properly admitted to refute an inference of recent fabrication of the testimony. A lay witness was not competent to testify as to defendant's ability to commit premeditated murder.


People V. Riser [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter Dec 1956

People V. Riser [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

In a capital murder prosecution, a trial court's grant of the prosecution's challenge to a juror, who stated that in no event would he vote for the death penalty, was not error.


People V. Penny, Jesse W. Carter Jul 1955

People V. Penny, Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

A conviction for involuntary manslaughter was reversed because the jury was erroneously instructed on a civil standard of negligence rather than criminal negligence and the lack of due caution and circumspection.