In re Kinney

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Foster

    198 Cal. 112 (Cal. 1926)   Cited 58 times
    In Foster, the California Supreme Court interpreted section 956, holding the section authorizes a midtrial amendment where there is an erroneous allegation as to the victim so long as the charge is supported by evidence taken at the preliminary hearing. (Foster, supra, 198 Cal. 112.)

    This form of pleading is authorized by statute. ( In re Kinney, 71 Cal.App. 490 [ 235 P. 460].) But one other question remains for decision which arises out of the court's refusal to give the whole of the alibi instruction offered by the defendant.

  2. People v. Drake

    6 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 31 times
    In Drake, the reviewing court upheld the trial court's exercise of discretion in granting a motion for new trial, where the prosecution had failed to disclose to the defense an expert opinion in its possession which was contrary to its trial position.

    However, it simply does not speak to the issue of a partial new trial. In In re Kinney (1925) 71 Cal.App. 490, the court held there was no merit to the contention that the grant of a new trial on seven counts of receiving stolen property also required a retrial of seven counts of burglary. "[It] did not operate to set aside the convictions on the charges of burglary, because the charges were embodied in independent counts upon which separate verdicts were rendered, and consequently constituted distinct judgments of conviction.