Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 13 of 13
Full-Text Articles in Law
People V. Simpson, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Simpson, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An accomplice's testimony did not have to be corroborated as to every fact to which he testified when there was other corroborative evidence showing that the accomplice was telling the truth.
People V. Moore, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Moore, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The trial court's error in refusing to give instructions as to the defendant's use of self-defense was prejudicial, resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and required a reversal of the judgment and the order denying defendant a new trial.
In Re Chessman, Jesse W. Carter
In Re Chessman, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A justice of the Supreme Court of California could grant a defendant's application for a stay of execution based on jurisdiction granted by a federal statute that allowed a court to grant a stay so a defendant could file a writ of certiorari.
People V. Carmen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Carmen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Evidence of another crime, part of the same criminal act for which defendant was on trial, was admissible at defendant's trial.
In Re Chessman, Jesse W. Carter
In Re Chessman, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An application for a stay of execution in a death penalty case was granted because there was evidence that the prosecuting officials fraudulently procured an inaccurate transcript for use on the appeal of the judgment.
People V. Robinson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Robinson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where there was prima facie proof of the existence of a conspiracy, testimony concerning a co-conspirator's statements in furtherance of the conspiracy, though made in the absence of defendant, was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
People V. Robinson, [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Robinson, [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A notice of appeal from a revocation of probation should have been liberally construed to permit a hearing on the merits and avoid a dismissal based on a technical defect or irregularity.
Hayashi V. Lorenz [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Hayashi V. Lorenz [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Plaintiffs failed to show any abuse of discretion by the trial court in dismissing their action for want of prosecution.
Gross V. Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Jesse W. Carter
Gross V. Superior Court Of Los Angeles County, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where a committed mental patient was denied appeal of his commitment and his request for the lower court to prepare transcripts of his commitment proceedings, the patient was entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the clerk to prepare transcripts.
People V. Wolfe, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Wolfe, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Remarks of the prosecuting attorney were not prejudicial to defendants because of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt. A manslaughter instruction would have been improper because evidence supported first-degree murder or self-defense.
People V. Jackson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Jackson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where the trial court offered entrapment instruction to the jury, despite the fact that only a favorable view of the evidence supported that defense, the decision was in defendant's favor and he could not challenge the instructions on appeal.
People V. Francis, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Francis, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to passing a check without sufficient funds with intent to defraud was properly denied because the evidence was in the probation report and considerable time had expired since entry of the plea.
People V. Byrd [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Byrd [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A criminal defendant's murder conviction was affirmed by the court because his guilt was established by substantial evidence and also because his intoxication during confession did not render that confession involuntary.