gno.law

People v. Yee Yum

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 454. · 1914-05-13 · Published · 141 P. 958 · 24 Cal. App. 470 · 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 74

The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. YEE YUM, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Monterey County
Trial judge
B. V. Sargent
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Carroll Cook, R. Porter Ashe, Elliot M.
Area
criminal
Panel
Thomas J. Lennon (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 — Lennon

LENNON, P. J.

In this case the defendant was charged with the crime of murder. He was convicted of murder in the first degree, and the punishment was fixed by the jury at imprisonment for life. Defendant has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

The main features of the case presented by the transcript are in all essential respects identical with the facts set forth in the companion case of The People etc.

v. Ho Kim You, ante p. 451, [141 Pac. 950] Crim. No. 456, this day decided. The defense interposed by the defendant in this case was also an aliii, and was supported by testimony which varied from the testimony offered by the defense in the case of Ho Kim You only in the particular that Dr. Bernal testified that the defendant Yee Yum was in his office in San Francisco at the hour of eight o’clock on the night of the homicide. The *471 points presented in this ease were all presented in practically identical form in the case of Ho Kim. Ton, and there decided adversely to the defendant. It would serve no useful purpose to review them in detail here.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in the case of Ho Kim Tou, the judgment and order appealed from in the present case are affirmed.

Richards, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on June 12, 1914.

Cites, in this corpus