People v. Jackson

California Court of Appeal

People v. Jackson

276 P. 156, 97 Cal. App. 692, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 752

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 20, 1929

DocketDocket No. 1765.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 276 P. 156 (People v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 276 P. 156, 97 Cal. App. 692, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 752 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was convicted of robbery. It is contended by him that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence, that the district attorney was guilty of misconduct and that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain instructions relative to reasonable doubt.

[1] We are satisfied that there was no reversible error in the admission of evidence. (People v. Hale, 64 Cal.App. 523 [222 P. 148].) Neither was the conduct of the district attorney such as would constitute reversible error. [2] The court, in compliance with section 1096a of the Penal Code, gave an instruction fully setting forth the definition and doctrine of reasonable doubt as contained in section 1096 of the Penal Code. The instructions asked by defendant were merely refinements or elaborations of this definition and doctrine. The refusal to give them was not prejudicial.

Judgment affirmed.

Houser, Acting P.J., and York, J., concurred.

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

The defendant was convicted of robbery. It is contended by him that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence, that the district attorney was guilty of misconduct and that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain instructions relative to reasonable doubt.

[1] We are satisfied that there was no reversible error in the admission of evidence. (People v. Hale, 64 Cal.App. 523 [222 P. 148].) Neither was the conduct of the district attorney such as would constitute reversible error. [2] The court, in compliance with section 1096a of the Penal Code, gave an instruction fully setting forth the definition and doctrine of reasonable doubt as contained in section 1096 of the Penal Code. The instructions asked by defendant were merely refinements or elaborations of this definition and doctrine. The refusal to give them was not prejudicial.

Judgment affirmed.

Houser, Acting P.J., and York, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 P. 156, 97 Cal. App. 692, 1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jackson-calctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack