Tannenbaum v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 16, 1953 No. Crim. No. 2900; Crim. No. 2901; Civ. No. 15673; Civ. No. 15674Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the rule of People v. Talle was not violated and that accomplice testimony is sufficient to support an indictment.

Issues

Whether the rule of People v. Talle was violated.
Whether accomplice testimony is sufficient to support an indictment.

Disposition. Denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court is of the opinion that the rule of People v. Talle, 111 Cal.App.2d 650 [245 P.2d 633], applying Statutes of 1871, page 319, was not here violated.”

“We are further of the view that the testimony of an accomplice is sufficient upon which to indict as it is to hold to answer.”

THE COURT. The petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.

The court is of the opinion that the rule of People v. Talle, 111 Cal.App.2d 650 [245 P.2d 633], applying Statutes of 1871, page 319, was not here violated. (See, generally, In re Lemon, 15 Cal.App.2d 82 [59 P.2d 213]; United States v. Price, 163 F. 904.) We are further of the view that the testimony of an accomplice is sufficient upon which to indict as it is to hold to answer. (People v. McRae, 31 Cal.2d 184 [187 P.2d 741].) The other points raised do not necessitate discussion. The petitions for writs of prohibition are denied.

Tannenbaum v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief