People v. Jenkins

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Miranda

    254 Cal.App.2d 517 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 6 times

    At bench, however, appellant requested and the court did give the instruction on section 647a, subdivision (1), the lesser included offense. In the recent case of People v. Jenkins, 232 Cal.App.2d 323, at 326 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 654], the court said: "The rule is now well established that the trial court, whether requested or not, should instruct the jury on all general principles of law pertinent and necessary to rendering a verdict." In People v. Lewis, 186 Cal.App.2d 585, at page 599 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 263], the court says: "Under Penal Code, section 1127 the trial court must state to the jury all matters of law necessary for their information.

  2. People v. Jenkins

    250 Cal.App.2d 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)

    The judgment was reversed on the ground that the jury had not been instructed properly regarding justifiable homicide. ( People v. Jenkins, 232 Cal.App.2d 323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 654].) Thereafter, an amended information was filed charging the defendant in count 1 with manslaughter of Leon Williams, and in count 2 with assault with a deadly weapon on William Johnson.

  3. People v. Pike

    239 Cal.App.2d 237 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 5 times

    Hence, being a voluntary unsolicited statement, it is clearly outside the scope of the rule laid down in the Dorado case and was therefore properly admissible in evidence. ( People v. Modesto, 62 Cal.2d 436 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 417, 398 P.2d 753]; People v. Jenkins, 232 Cal.App.2d 323 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 654]; People v. Beverly, 233 Cal.App.2d 702 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 743].) Further, upon the record in this case, even if the statement had been excluded, there is no reasonable probability that the trier of fact would have reached a result more favorable to the defendant.

  4. People v. Furber

    233 Cal.App.2d 678 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 6 times

    The fact that she was the sole and obvious suspect, together with the presence of the two officers, definitely establishes that she was under arrest at the time her statement was taken (cf. Pen. Code, ยงยง 834, 835; People v. Jenkins, 232 Cal.App.2d 323, 326 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 654]; People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.2d 571 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201, 400 P.2d 97]). It is clear that had she attempted to leave the scene, she would have been restrained.