People v. Lawyer

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Norton

    141 Cal.App.2d 790 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 13 times

    Since counsel for defendant made no objection at the time and did not move to strike or ask the court to admonish the jury to disregard these statements, and since the truth of their utterance is not established by a competent record, defendant may not now be heard to complain. ( People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; 17 West's Cal.Dig., p. 199, Key 1119(4); 8 Cal.Jur., p. 508, § 521.) Next, it is claimed that the court erred in not giving, on its own motion, further instructions on circumstantial evidence involving criminal knowledge and intent, citing such cases as People v. Yrigoyen, 45 Cal.2d 46 [ 286 P.2d 1]; People v. Koenig, 29 Cal.2d 87 [ 173 P.2d 1]; and cases cited therein.

  2. People v. Hidalgo

    78 Cal.App.2d 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)   Cited 27 times

    Under these circumstances a reviewing court is unable intelligently to appraise the effect of the criticised remarks and to declare that the language amounts to such prejudicial misconduct as to demand reversal of the judgment. ( People v. Bragdon, 103 Cal.App. 20 [ 283 P. 881]; People v. James, 133 Cal.App. 751 [ 24 P.2d 859]; People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; People v. Gregory, 12 Cal.App.2d 7 [ 54 P.2d 770]; People v. Mareck, 17 Cal.App.2d 278 [ 61 P.2d 972].) If appellant's counsel desired that the criticised language should receive the full consideration and fair appraisal of a reviewing court they should have complied with the provisions of section 7 of rule II of the rules of this court.

  3. People v. Chilcott

    18 Cal.App.2d 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)   Cited 21 times
    In People v. Chilcott, supra (18 Cal.App.2d 583), there were statements made similar to those made in our case, which the court held were misconduct.

    Under these circumstances a reviewing court is unable intelligently to appraise the effect of the criticized remarks and to declare that the language amounts to such prejudicial misconduct as to demand reversal of the judgment. ( People v. Bragdon, 103 Cal.App. 20 [ 283 P. 881]; People v. James, 133 Cal.App. 751 [ 24 P.2d 859]; People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App. (2d) 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; People v. Gregory, 12 Cal.App. (2d) 7 [ 54 P.2d 770]; People v. Mareck, 17 Cal.App. (2d) 278 [ 61 P.2d 972].) If appellant's counsel desired that the criticized language should receive the full consideration and fair appraisal of a reviewing court they should have complied with the provisions of section 7 of rule II of the rules of this court.

  4. People v. Mareck

    17 Cal.App.2d 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)   Cited 5 times

    We are, therefore, unable to pass upon that objection. ( People v. James, 133 Cal.App. 751 [ 24 P.2d 859]; People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App. (2d) 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; People v. Gregory, 12 Cal.App. (2d) 7 [ 54 P.2d 770]; People v. Bragdon, 103 Cal.App. 20 [ 283 P. 881].) In People v. Bragdon, supra, the court, in discussing alleged misconduct of the district attorney, in his argument said:

  5. People v. Gregory

    12 Cal.App.2d 7 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)   Cited 16 times

    Under these circumstances, this court might well refuse to consider this assignment of error. ( People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App. (2d) 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036]; People v. James, 133 Cal.App. 751 [ 24 P.2d 859]; People v. Bragdon, 103 Cal.App. 20 [ 283 P. 881].) [7] We have nevertheless examined the closing argument of the district attorney and while we cannot place the stamp of approval on all that was said, we are of the opinion that there was nothing therein which would warrant a reversal of the judgment against appellant.

  6. People v. Lawyer

    11 Cal.App.2d 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)   Cited 6 times

    That judgment was affirmed. ( People v. Lawyer, 1 Cal.App. (2d) 1 [ 35 P.2d 1036].) He made a motion to set aside the judgment, which was denied.