People v. Cox

California Court of Appeal

People v. Cox

151 P.2d 269, 65 Cal. App. 2d 712, 1944 Cal. App. LEXIS 766

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 12, 1944

DocketCrim. No. 627

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 151 P.2d 269 (People v. Cox) 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

People v. Cox, 151 P.2d 269, 65 Cal. App. 2d 712, 1944 Cal. App. LEXIS 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Acting P. J.

Defendant and appellant petitioned this court for a stay of execution of a judgment of conviction pending the determination of his appeal following the refusal of the trial court to order a stay of execution pending the appeal pursuant to section 1243 of the Penal Code.

We have examined the record on appeal in which the defendant has urged the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, misconduct of the trial judge, unwarranted restriction of cross-examination, and the giving of claimed erroneous instructions. We have concluded that the grounds urged for a reversal of the judgment present debatable questions meriting extended consideration by the court and that the appeal has been taken in good faith and is not frivolous. Under these circumstances a stay of execution should be and is granted pending the final determination of the case on appeal. (People v. Burnette, 34 Cal.App.2d 663 [94 P.2d 399]; People v. Simpson, 65 Cal.App.2d 15 [151 P.2d 738].)

Marks, J., concurred.

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

GRIFFIN, Acting P. J.

Defendant and appellant petitioned this court for a stay of execution of a judgment of conviction pending the determination of his appeal following the refusal of the trial court to order a stay of execution pending the appeal pursuant to section 1243 of the Penal Code.

We have examined the record on appeal in which the defendant has urged the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, misconduct of the trial judge, unwarranted restriction of cross-examination, and the giving of claimed erroneous instructions. We have concluded that the grounds urged for a reversal of the judgment present debatable questions meriting extended consideration by the court and that the appeal has been taken in good faith and is not frivolous. Under these circumstances a stay of execution should be and is granted pending the final determination of the case on appeal. (People v. Burnette, 34 Cal.App.2d 663 [94 P.2d 399]; People v. Simpson, 65 Cal.App.2d 15 [151 P.2d 738].)

Marks, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 P.2d 269, 65 Cal. App. 2d 712, 1944 Cal. App. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cox-calctapp-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack