People v. Ah Ti

California Supreme Court

People v. Ah Ti

9 Cal. 16

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 9 Cal. 16 (People v. Ah Ti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ah Ti, 9 Cal. 16 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, J., concurring.

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny. The only error assigned is that the testimony did not justify the verdict.

The rule is well settled that where there is no legal testimony to sustain the verdict, it will be set aside; but where the testimony is conflicting, or where the credibility of witnesses must be passed upon, it is a matter solely for the jury to determine. In this case, we think the jury might have found the defendant guilty or not guilty, and the Court would not have been justified in granting a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, J., concurring.

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny. The only error assigned is that the testimony did not justify the verdict.

The rule is well settled that where there is no legal testimony to sustain the verdict, it will be set aside; but where the testimony is conflicting, or where the credibility of witnesses must be passed upon, it is a matter solely for the jury to determine. In this case, we think the jury might have found the defendant guilty or not guilty, and the Court would not have been justified in granting a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cal. 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ah-ti-cal-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack