People v. McFlynn (1865) · DecisionDepot

People v. McFlynn

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Nov 7, 1865 No. No. 682Published

Before: Currey, Rhodes, Sanderson, Sawyer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the indictment was sufficient and the jury instructions were proper, but reversed the judgment because the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant acted with the intent to steal.

Issues

Whether the indictment was sufficient.
Whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions.
Whether the 1863 act allowing a wife to testify applies to criminal cases.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to steal.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The act of 1863 (Laws 1863, p. 771) authorizing the wife to be a witness for or against the husband is an amendment to section 395 of the Civil Practice Act, and relates only to civil cases.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Placer County.

SAWYER, J.- The indictment is sufficient: People v. Sanksley, and cases cited. We find no error in the charge of the court, or instructions given at request of counsel. The act of 1863 (Laws 1863, p. 771) authorizing the wife to be a witness for or against the husband is an amendment to section 395 of the Civil Practice Act, and relates only to civil cases.

We think, however, that the,evidence is insufficient to show that the branding of the cattle was done with intent to steal, and for this reason the judgment must be reversed and a new trial had, a«d it is so ordered.

We concur: Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.; Sanderson, C. J.

People v. McFlynn

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief