The People of the Territory of Guam v. Ernest R. Timmerman

Ninth Circuit

The People of the Territory of Guam v. Ernest R. Timmerman

439 F.2d 683, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11523

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 1971

Docket26582

StatusPublished

This text of 439 F.2d 683 (The People of the Territory of Guam v. Ernest R. Timmerman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The People of the Territory of Guam v. Ernest R. Timmerman, 439 F.2d 683, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11523 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

*684 PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a conviction in a jury trial and sentence for aggravated assault in violation of section 245 of the Penal Code of Guam. We affirm.

Appellant and one Tenerio, adjoining land owners on the Island of Guam became engaged in a series of altercations, which eventually terminated when appellant struck Tenerio on the arm with a machette. The trial court gave instructions on the right of self defense, which appellant concedes were correct statements of law. His sole contention is that the court erred because the evidence produced at the trial did not justify the giving of the instructions.

We have examined the record and find that there was a factual basis in the evidence for the instructions as given.

Judgment is affirmed.

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

*684 PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a conviction in a jury trial and sentence for aggravated assault in violation of section 245 of the Penal Code of Guam. We affirm.

Appellant and one Tenerio, adjoining land owners on the Island of Guam became engaged in a series of altercations, which eventually terminated when appellant struck Tenerio on the arm with a machette. The trial court gave instructions on the right of self defense, which appellant concedes were correct statements of law. His sole contention is that the court erred because the evidence produced at the trial did not justify the giving of the instructions.

We have examined the record and find that there was a factual basis in the evidence for the instructions as given.

Judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 F.2d 683, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-people-of-the-territory-of-guam-v-ernest-r-timmerman-ca9-1971.