Rameriz

People v. Rameriz

Good Law
1 Cal. 2d 559·1934 Cal. LEXIS 412·36 P.2d 628
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 1, 1934Crim. 3735California1,975 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curtis, J.

The defendant, Justo Rameriz, was convicted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles of first degree murder. The verdict being without recommendation, the court below entered judgment imposing the death penalty. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The first ground urged for a reversal is that the homicide was committed in self-defense and that the verdict of the jury that the homicide was not justifiable is contrary to the evidence. In order to uphold this contention, it would be necessary for this court to wholly ignore the testimony of five witnesses for the prosecution who were eyewitnesses to the shooting of the deceased by defendant, and accept as true the testimony of the defendant, which in many of its details was. inherently improbable.

The facts of the case, as shown by the evidence adduced by the prosecution, are substantially as follows: Luis Flores, a young man of Mexican nationality, married and the father of two small children, was living with his family near Van Nuys in the San Fernando Valley in the community known as Canoga Park. On May 5, 1931, which was a Mexican national holiday, defendant and…

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.