People v. Fleming

California Court of Appeal

People v. Fleming

58 P.2d 229, 14 Cal. App. 2d 402, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 881

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 2, 1936

DocketCrim. No. 2864

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 P.2d 229 (People v. Fleming) 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. Fleming, 58 P.2d 229, 14 Cal. App. 2d 402, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 881 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIL, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of rape and also of robbery and appeals from the judgment. The points upon which he relies are not separately stated in Ms brief, but we can see that he complains (1) about the sufficiency of the evidence and (2) about certain remarks made by the district attorney in his closing argument to the jury.

With regard to the evidence he argues that “a number of witnesses were produced to testify for the plaintiff [403]*403and respondent whose testimony was volunteered for the purpose of misleading the jury”. But he does not argue at all the legal proposition that there is not any substantial evidence to sustain the verdict, which is the only question in this regard that we may review on appeal. With regard to the remarks of the district attorney, there is no claim that the court made erroneous rulings with regard thereto. The remarks themselves were not such as in themselves to constitute reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Wood, J., and McComb, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

CRAIL, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of rape and also of robbery and appeals from the judgment. The points upon which he relies are not separately stated in Ms brief, but we can see that he complains (1) about the sufficiency of the evidence and (2) about certain remarks made by the district attorney in his closing argument to the jury.

With regard to the evidence he argues that “a number of witnesses were produced to testify for the plaintiff [403]*403and respondent whose testimony was volunteered for the purpose of misleading the jury”. But he does not argue at all the legal proposition that there is not any substantial evidence to sustain the verdict, which is the only question in this regard that we may review on appeal. With regard to the remarks of the district attorney, there is no claim that the court made erroneous rulings with regard thereto. The remarks themselves were not such as in themselves to constitute reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

Wood, J., and McComb, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 P.2d 229, 14 Cal. App. 2d 402, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fleming-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack