Short

People v. Short

Good Law
1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 123·79 Cal. App. 456·249 P. 878
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 7, 1926Docket No. 1359.California611 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

York, J.

Defendant was convicted on the first count of an indictment, charging the crime of “forgery of contract and writing obligatory” hereinafter called the Shannon contract. On all of the other eleven counts the jury found defendant not guilty. The conviction of defendant was founded upon the evidence of her codefendant, Rosie Adam-son, after said codefendant’s plea of guilty. In addition, respondent relies upon other evidence hereinafter mentioned, including testimony of a deputy district attorney concerning facts admitted to him by the defendant after her indictment. The codefendant’s testimony, if true, proved that she was an accomplice of this defendant in committing the crime, for the commission of which they were jointly indicted. There was no corroborating evidence in support of the testimony of the accomplice as required by section 1111 of the Penal Code, which provides that “the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” The only evidence which anyone could possibly contend was corroborative evidence tending “to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense ’ ’ of which she was convicted, was…

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.