People v. Yee Yum

California Court of Appeal

People v. Yee Yum

141 P. 958, 24 Cal. App. 470, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 74

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 13, 1914

DocketCrim. No. 454.

StatusPublished

This text of 141 P. 958 (People v. Yee Yum) 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. Yee Yum, 141 P. 958, 24 Cal. App. 470, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

LENNON, P. J.

In this case the defendant was charged with the crime of murder. He was convicted of murder in the first degree, and the punishment was fixed by the jury at imprisonment for life. Defendant has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

The main features of the case presented by the transcript are in all essential respects identical with the facts set forth in the companion case of The People etc. v. Ho Kim You, ante p. 451, [141 Pac. 950] Crim. No. 456, this day decided. The defense interposed by the defendant in this case was also an aliii, and was supported by testimony which varied from the testimony offered by the defense in the case of Ho Kim You only in the particular that Dr. Bernal testified that the defendant Yee Yum was in his office in San Francisco at the hour of eight o’clock on the night of the homicide. The *471 points presented in this ease were all presented in practically identical form in the case of Ho Kim. Ton, and there decided adversely to the defendant. It would serve no useful purpose to review them in detail here.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in the case of Ho Kim Tou, the judgment and order appealed from in the present case are affirmed.

Richards, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on June 12, 1914.

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

LENNON, P. J.

In this case the defendant was charged with the crime of murder. He was convicted of murder in the first degree, and the punishment was fixed by the jury at imprisonment for life. Defendant has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

The main features of the case presented by the transcript are in all essential respects identical with the facts set forth in the companion case of The People etc. v. Ho Kim You, ante p. 451, [141 Pac. 950] Crim. No. 456, this day decided. The defense interposed by the defendant in this case was also an aliii, and was supported by testimony which varied from the testimony offered by the defense in the case of Ho Kim You only in the particular that Dr. Bernal testified that the defendant Yee Yum was in his office in San Francisco at the hour of eight o’clock on the night of the homicide. The *471 points presented in this ease were all presented in practically identical form in the case of Ho Kim. Ton, and there decided adversely to the defendant. It would serve no useful purpose to review them in detail here.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in the case of Ho Kim Tou, the judgment and order appealed from in the present case are affirmed.

Richards, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on June 12, 1914.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 P. 958, 24 Cal. App. 470, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yee-yum-calctapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack