Summary
noting erroneously admitted testimony from a detective was "particularly prejudicial," despite the court's cautionary instruction, because of the detailed and graphic recounting of facts and the detective's credibility
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. JohnsonOpinion
Department 2.
Petition for writ of review. The petitioner, Merrick, claimed that in an action brought by one Stiles against him, commenced in a justice’s court, and appealed to the superior court of San Francisco, the judge of the superior court rendered judgment against him without his counsel or himself being present in court, in excess of its jurisdiction, and contrary to a rule of said court regarding the giving of notice when the court calendar will be taken up, etc.
COUNSEL
John J. Coffey, for petitioner.
OPINION
THE COURT.
The petition is insufficient, and the application for the writ of review must be denied. Ordered accordingly.