People v. Garris

California Court of Appeal

People v. Garris

261 P.2d 765, 120 Cal. App. 2d 617, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1989

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 15, 1953

DocketCrim. No. 4950

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 261 P.2d 765 (People v. Garris) 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. Garris, 261 P.2d 765, 120 Cal. App. 2d 617, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1989 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

After trial before a jury, defendant Taylor was found guilty of three counts of robbery in the first degree, and one count of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdicts of guilty, in fact, his attorney on a motion for a new trial conceded that the People had produced “overwhelming evidence” of defendant’s guilt. Defendant merely argues the credibility of the evidence which was, of [618]*618course, a question for the trier of fact. He does not attempt to point out any other error in the proceedings before the trial court. Therefore this rule is applicable: In the absence of a showing in the record to the contrary an appellate court will indulge all reasonable presumptions in favor of the judgment and rulings of the trial court, and will presume that the proceedings were regular and free from error.

In order to overcome such presumption the burden is upon the appellant (defendant) to show affirmatively by the record that prejudicial error occurred, which error must be pointed out in the briefs of the complaining party. Otherwise any alleged error will be disregarded by this court. (See People v. Cebulla, 137 Cal. 314, 318 [5] [70 P. 181]; People v. Purcell, 22 Cal.App.2d 126, 128 [2] [70 P.2d 706].)

Affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Fox, J., concurred.

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

McCOMB, J.

After trial before a jury, defendant Taylor was found guilty of three counts of robbery in the first degree, and one count of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdicts of guilty, in fact, his attorney on a motion for a new trial conceded that the People had produced “overwhelming evidence” of defendant’s guilt. Defendant merely argues the credibility of the evidence which was, of [618]*618course, a question for the trier of fact. He does not attempt to point out any other error in the proceedings before the trial court. Therefore this rule is applicable: In the absence of a showing in the record to the contrary an appellate court will indulge all reasonable presumptions in favor of the judgment and rulings of the trial court, and will presume that the proceedings were regular and free from error.

In order to overcome such presumption the burden is upon the appellant (defendant) to show affirmatively by the record that prejudicial error occurred, which error must be pointed out in the briefs of the complaining party. Otherwise any alleged error will be disregarded by this court. (See People v. Cebulla, 137 Cal. 314, 318 [5] [70 P. 181]; People v. Purcell, 22 Cal.App.2d 126, 128 [2] [70 P.2d 706].)

Affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Fox, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 P.2d 765, 120 Cal. App. 2d 617, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garris-calctapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack