gno.law

People v. Cox

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 627 · 1944-09-12 · Published · 65 Cal. App. 2d 712

Area
criminal
Panel
Lloyd E. Griffin (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

65 Cal.App.2d 712 (1944) THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. RAYMOND L. COX, Petitioner.

Crim. No. 627. California Court of Appeals. Fourth Dist.

Sept. 12, 1944. Swing & Swing for Petitioner.

Robert W. Kenny, Attorney General, Jerome B. Kavanaugh (San Bernardino), District Attorney, and Theodore Krumm, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.

GRIFFIN, Acting P. J.

Defendant and appellant petitioned this court for a stay of execution of a judgment of conviction pending the determination of his appeal following the refusal of the trial court to order a stay of execution pending the appeal pursuant to section 1243 of the Penal Code.

[1] We have examined the record on appeal in which the defendant has urged the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, misconduct of the trial judge, unwarranted restriction of cross-examination, and the giving of claimed erroneous instructions. We have concluded that the grounds urged for a reversal of the judgment present debatable questions meriting extended consideration by the court and that the appeal has been taken in good faith and is not frivolous. Under these circumstances a stay of execution should be and is granted pending the final determination of the case on appeal. (People v. Burnette, 34 Cal.App.2d 663 [94 P.2d 399]; (People v. Simpson, 65 Cal.App.2d 15 [151 P.2d 738].)

Marks, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by