Dillon

People v. Dillon

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 358·68 Cal. App. 457·229 P. 974
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 1924Civ. No. 1171.California6,649 words

Opinion

addendum Opinion

Appellant makes application for rehearing and takes exception to language used by us in passing upon his point that "the case should have been reversed because of the error of the trial court in refusing to give certain instructions requested by the appellant as to the law of circumstantial evidence." Concerning this matter the opinion of the court is as follows: "A definition of circumstantial evidence following an instruction that corroboration of an accomplice's testimony may be had in that manner, would no doubt have been proper, but could not have been prejudicial here in view of the fact that they were to act on the evidence received, from which the jury must have understood that of that evidence part was circumstantial. The instructions requested further in that connection, however, that the circumstances must show the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, were properly refused. To so instruct the jury would be to fly in the face of the statute relating to the testimony of an accomplice as permitted in criminal cases for all purposes save conviction, and place the burden of proof of guilt entirely on other evidence, the very thing the statute was enacted to…

lead Opinion

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 459 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 460 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 461 The defendant, an elected officer, was commissioner of finance of the city of Fresno. He had previously *Page 462 held other municipal offices, among them collector of licenses. The charter under which the commissioner of finance was charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer, and disbursement of public moneys consisting of license fees collected by the city from the issuance of licenses, and keeping accounts and records pertaining to the collection and receipt of license fees, went into effect April 25, 1921. Prior to this time the deputy, Erickson, had been city license collector, succeeding Dillon, the commissioner, in that position on the latter's appointment as city clerk in 1918. Dillon, after election as commissioner of finance under the new…

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.