People v. Tagawa

California Court of Appeal

People v. Tagawa

92 P.2d 650, 33 Cal. App. 2d 611, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 279

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 5, 1939

DocketCrim. No. 1681

StatusPublished

This text of 92 P.2d 650 (People v. Tagawa) 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. Tagawa, 92 P.2d 650, 33 Cal. App. 2d 611, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Defendant was convicted, before a jury, of murder in the second degree. The court granted a motion for new trial, and the People now appeal from the order.

Defendant now moves this court for an order dismissing the appeal, or in the alternative affirming the order. No statute or precedent is mentioned to support the procedure. Defendant’s ground is that the action of the trial court was entirely discretionary, and that the record shows no abuse of such discretion. In the first place we find no such procedure applicable to a criminal case, and in the second place, we believe that the opening brief of the People has sufficient merit to require an investigation of the entire record, something which is not contemplated on a motion of this character.

The motion is denied.

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

THE COURT.

Defendant was convicted, before a jury, of murder in the second degree. The court granted a motion for new trial, and the People now appeal from the order.

Defendant now moves this court for an order dismissing the appeal, or in the alternative affirming the order. No statute or precedent is mentioned to support the procedure. Defendant’s ground is that the action of the trial court was entirely discretionary, and that the record shows no abuse of such discretion. In the first place we find no such procedure applicable to a criminal case, and in the second place, we believe that the opening brief of the People has sufficient merit to require an investigation of the entire record, something which is not contemplated on a motion of this character.

The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 P.2d 650, 33 Cal. App. 2d 611, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tagawa-calctapp-1939.