People v. Montgomery

Good Law
132 Cal. Rptr. 558·1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 1853·61 Cal. App. 3d 718
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 8, 1976Crim. 14262California5,343 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bray, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment after jury verdict of the Santa Clara County Superior Court of guilty of violation of Penal Code section 165. The People appeal from an order of the same court granting defendant a hew trial on count two of the indictment.

Issues Presented

People’s appeal.

1. The court wrongly concluded that it erred in failing to dismiss count two on the ground of entrapment; however, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial on count two.

Defendant’s appeal.

2. The court properly denied admittance of the prior relationship between Clement and Commander Thomas.

3. Tape recordings of certain telephone conversations were admissible.

4. The instruction on the elements of Penal Code section 165 was properly given.

5. The disenfranchisement provision of Penal Code section 165 does not violate equal protection.

6. The court did not commit prejudicial error in failing to admit evidence of statements that Commander Thomas made to Clement.

7. The prosecutor did not commit prejudicial misconduct.

Record

Defendant Mark Timothy Montgomery was indicted by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury on two counts of bribery in violation of Penal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.