Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (11)
- Homicide (6)
- Death penalty (5)
- Habeas corpus (5)
- Appeals (4)
-
- Entrapment (2)
- Harmless Error (2)
- Harmless error (2)
- Arrest without warrant (1)
- Cause of death (1)
- Civil Death (1)
- Commutation of death penalty (1)
- Conduct of Judge (1)
- Contributing to the delinquency of a minor (1)
- Corpus delecti (1)
- Criminal conspiracy (1)
- Criminal intent (1)
- Demonstrative evidence (1)
- Documentary Evidence (1)
- Domestic abuse (1)
- Driving under the influence (1)
- Evidence, voir dire, harmless error (1)
- Examination by Court (1)
- Expert Testimony (1)
- Failure to Prosecute (1)
- First degree murder (1)
- Former jeopardy, larceny (1)
- Habeas corpus, probation (1)
- Habeas corpus, taxicab stands (1)
- Hearsay rule (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 58
Full-Text Articles in Law
In Re Dennis, Jesse W. Carter
In Re Dennis, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's trial and conviction constituted a denial of due process where defendant was physically present, but his mental condition was such that he was incapable of understanding the proceedings against him and unable to assist his attorney.
People V. Bernstein, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Bernstein, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The information against defendant for contributing to the delinquency of a child was properly set aside because there was no evidence that his acts had any untoward effect whatsoever upon the child.
In Re Bandmann, Jesse W. Carter
In Re Bandmann, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An inmate's application for a writ of habeas corpus based upon an improper sentence being imposed was denied and the matter was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence.
In Re Osslo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
In Re Osslo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Two probationers could reject probation that they did not assent to at trial after the final appeal was decided because they never manifested acceptance of the terms of the probation, especially a prohibition from holding union offices.
Tupper V. Superior Court Of Marin County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Tupper V. Superior Court Of Marin County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where an accused's commitment was not based entirely on incompetent evidence, a writ of prohibition did not lie to review of the ruling of the magistrate on a procedural matter.
In Re Petersen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
In Re Petersen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Ordinances allowing a police chief to designate exclusive taxicab stands and prohibiting competing companies from standing therein, was a valid exercise of a municipality's police power and was not invalidly discriminatory.
Gomez V. Superior Court Of Mendocino County, Jesse W. Carter
Gomez V. Superior Court Of Mendocino County, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where petitioners were charged with grand theft, but the jury found them guilty only of petty theft, which judgment was reversed on appeal, they could not later be retried for grand theft, because double jeopardy protections attached.
People V. Friend [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Friend [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The comments of the judge were in keeping with the Constitution and the established limitations on his power, and there was no sound basis for concluding that the question of penalty was not fairly tried.
People V. Osslo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Osslo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Sufficient evidence supported the conviction of eight criminal defendants for conspiracy and assault when they beat up the retail clerk union's business agent who reportedly infringed on the butcher union's business.
People V. Wilburn, Jesse W. Carter
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
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. Craig, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Craig, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Without a showing of premeditation or a showing that a murder was committed in an attempt to commit rape, a first degree murder conviction should have been a second degree murder conviction for the killing of the female victim by defendant.
People V. Sheran, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Sheran, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The trial court had the power to modify a verdict by reducing the class of defendant's crime. Substantial evidence in the record supported the modification, and no inference could be drawn from the evidence contrary to those drawn by the jury.
In Re Carmen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
In Re Carmen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Prisoner's conviction could not be attacked on habeas corpus upon allegations of new and additional facts claiming that convicting court lacked jurisdiction over offense because jurisdictional allegations did not appear upon face of trial record.
People V. Duroncelay [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Duroncelay [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's rights were not violated and results of the alcohol test were properly admitted in evidence in trial for driving under the influence of alcohol when extraction was made in a medically approved manner and was incident to the lawful arrest.
People V. Moore [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
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. Corrigan [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Corrigan [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's conviction for robbery was affirmed where the trial court's questioning of various witnesses was not prejudicial and any objections thereto were not made by defendant during the trial and consequently were deemed waived by the court.
People V. Randazzo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Randazzo [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's complaint that erroneous instructions were given did not authorize the recall of remittitur, for it was a complaint of an error of law only, and remittitur could not be recalled to correct judicial error or mistake of law.
People V. Hardenbrook, Jesse W. Carter
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. Cheary [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Cheary [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's new trial motion was properly denied where sufficient evidence supported the jury's imposition of the death penalty based on defendant's conviction for first-degree murder.
People V. Riser [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
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. Bridgehouse, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Bridgehouse, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's conviction for second-degree murder was reduced to manslaughter where the evidence showed that defendant went into shock upon seeing his wife's lover at his mother-in-law's house and where defendant had never threatened the victim.
People V. Linson, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Linson, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant was properly convicted of second degree burglary because there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and the prosecutor did not commit prejudicial misconduct in his closing argument to the jury.
Caritativo V. Teets [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Caritativo V. Teets [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Writ of mandate would not issue to compel warden to institute proceedings to determine present sanity of defendant awaiting execution of death penalty after warden determined that there was not good reason to believe defendant was presently insane.
People V. Cole [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Cole [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Medical opinion as to whether the victim's wound could have been self-inflicted was admissible and sufficient evidence supported the verdict finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder.
People V. Merkouris, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Merkouris, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant was due a new trial for his ex-wife's murder because trial court erred by permitting him to withdraw not guilty by reason of insanity plea over counsel's implied objection and because instructions to jury on lying in wait were improper.
People V. Nunn [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Nunn [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An osteopath's conviction for selling prescriptions for narcotics was proper because the regulatory code's use of the phrase "good faith" was not vague, and the prosecution's attempt to obtain narcotics from the osteopath was not entrapment.
People V. Rios [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Rios [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's arrest for the possession of heroin was lawful where the officer had reasonable cause to believe that defendant had committed a felony after defendant admitted that he had taken an injection of heroin two weeks before.
Willson V. Superior Court Of San Diego County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Willson V. Superior Court Of San Diego County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Although defendant's conduct observed by an officer did not of itself constitute reasonable cause to believe she was committing a felony, it was sufficient to justify the officer's reliance on information regarding defendant's bookmaking.
Hill V. Superior Court Of Humboldt County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Hill V. Superior Court Of Humboldt County [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Court-appointed attorneys who defended an indigent client charged with murder were not entitled to a writ compelling compensation of more than $ 1,000, where the payment was comparable to other jurisdictions and to that received by public employees.