In re Black

California Court of Appeal

In re Black

35 P.2d 355, 140 Cal. App. 361, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 425

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 8, 1934

DocketCrim. No. 1821

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 35 P.2d 355 (In re Black) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Black, 35 P.2d 355, 140 Cal. App. 361, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 425 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain a reduction of bail is denied. There are numerous considerations entering into the determination of the amount of bail to be required by the trial court in any case. (In re Tsuji Horiuchi, 105 Cal. App. 714 [288 Pac. 708] ; Ex parte Ruef, 7 Cal. App. 750 [96 Pac. 24]; In re Williams, 82 Cal. 183 [23 Pac. 118].) Under the authorities cited, this court must assume in this proceeding that the petitioners are guilty and must further assume that the trial court determined from the facts before it that the bail fixed was reasonably necessary. Furthermore, it is well settled that this court should not reduce the bail unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion. There has been no showing made of an abuse of discretion herein.

[362]*362An application by petitioner to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on September 6, 1934.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain a reduction of bail is denied. There are numerous considerations entering into the determination of the amount of bail to be required by the trial court in any case. (In re Tsuji Horiuchi, 105 Cal. App. 714 [288 Pac. 708] ; Ex parte Ruef, 7 Cal. App. 750 [96 Pac. 24]; In re Williams, 82 Cal. 183 [23 Pac. 118].) Under the authorities cited, this court must assume in this proceeding that the petitioners are guilty and must further assume that the trial court determined from the facts before it that the bail fixed was reasonably necessary. Furthermore, it is well settled that this court should not reduce the bail unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion. There has been no showing made of an abuse of discretion herein.

[362]*362An application by petitioner to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on September 6, 1934.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 P.2d 355, 140 Cal. App. 361, 1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-black-calctapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack