O'Connor

People v. O'Connor

Good Law
1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 309·88 Cal. App. 568·263 P. 866
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 24, 1928Docket No. 1003.California2,547 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

The defendant was convicted in the s~iperior court of Yolo County of two offenses set forth in two counts in the information, to wit, the crime of and the crime of robbery. He appeals from the and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The present appeals are the outgrowth of a second trial of the defendant for the two distinct charges set forth as stated.

At the first trial of the case the defendant was jointly charged with one Fitzgibbons for the crimes named and the two were jointly tried with certain other parties charged in a different information with participation in the commission of the same crimes, all the accused, except one, who pleaded guilty, being found guilty. Each of the convicted defendants appealed to this court from the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial to each. This court, in an opinion by Justice Plummer, reversed the judgment and the order entered in the ease of O’Connor (the appellant here) and Fitzgibbons, and remanded the cause for a trial de novo. (People v. O’Connor, 81 Cal. App. 506 [ 254 Pac. 630 ].)

The single point submitted here for determination involves the proposition, advanced by defendant, that the trial court…

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.