People v. Lattimore
Citations
- 86 Cal. 403
- 24 P. 1091
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1042
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law — Arson — Evidence — Previous Fires — Declarations of Defendant — Threats. —Upon the trial of one accused of arson, it is not error to introduce in evidence conversations between the defendant and different persons, at different times before the fire, as to former fires upon the same property, in which the defendant used expressions to the effect that the former fires were nothing to what would happen in the future, and other like expressions of a threatening character, indicating an intention to burn certain persons out.</p> <p>Id.—Proof of Intent — Previous Arson.—Evidence tending to show that the defendant started one of the former fires, to which allusion had been made in such conversations, by which another building on the same premises was burned, is admissible, as cumulative evidence tending to prove his intent to copimit the arson charged.</p> <p>Id. —Alibi — Instruction — Scrutiny of Evidence. —The defense of aVU is not one requiring that the evidence given in support of it should be scrutinized otherwise or differently from that given in support of any other issue in the cause; but an unnecessary instruction in regard to the scrutinizing of such evidence is not ground of reversal, if the charge of the court, taken as a whole, contains a full and fair exposition of the law.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that a juror’s knowledge of or relationship with a witness is a basis for disqualification only if it has created in the juror a fixed opinion of guilt or innocence or a bias for or against the accused
- failure to make a motion that the trial court was authorized to deny does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel
- trial counsel not ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine when the trial court would have acted within its discretion in denying the motion
- evidence that defendant’s DNA was found in deceased victim’s rectum and his personal items were found at the scene of the crime was sufficient to support sodomy conviction
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fox
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.