gno.law

Tannenbaum v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Crim. No. 2900; Crim. No. 2901; Civ. No. 15673; Civ. No. 15674 · 1953-01-16 · Published · 115 Cal. App. 2d 394 · 252 P.2d 54 · 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1673

In re JOSEPH TANNENBAUM, on Habeas Corpus In re CARL E. BROWN, on Habeas Corpus JOSEPH TANNENBAUM v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent CARL E. BROWN v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Area
civil

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

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.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by