Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.
People V. Morlock, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Morlock, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A specific intent to steal was an essential element of the crime of robbery, as distinguished from the crime of burglary, where the crime was complete when the accused had entered the house of another with intent to commit any felony.
People V. Malotte [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Malotte [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where defendant discussed with police officers in a secretly taped conversation the commission of a crime, namely, provision of prostitutes, there was no unreasonable invasion of privacy when the conversation was used against her.