Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Moore

232 Cal.App.2d 317 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Moore

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Brooks

    234 Cal.App.2d 662 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 35 times

    (Cf. People v. Ausbie (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 724, 727 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 137]; People v. Collin (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 681, 684 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 57]; People v. Mora (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 400, 406 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 725] ; People v. Moore (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 317, 318-319 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 662].) Furthermore, if the premise be accepted that "the court in Escobedo sought the correction of the conditions which invited the coerced confessions and the attendant evils" ( In re Lopez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 368, 375 and generally pp. 373-376 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 188, 398 P.2d 380]) the relevant circumstances here, in that they disclose discussion on a public street in front of witnesses who attested defendant's innocence of the original charge, disclose no need to strike down the statements elicited in order to attain the stated objectives.

  2. People v. Andrews

    234 Cal.App.2d 69 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 38 times
    In People v. Andrews, 44 Cal.Rptr. 94 (1965), decided shortly after Pointer v. Texas, supra, that court held that the stipulation of the accused's attorney, made in open court, in the presence of the accused and without his objection, that the case could be tried on the transcript of testimony taken at the preliminary hearing, was a waiver by the accused of his constitutionally guaranteed right to be confronted by witnesses at trial.

    We hold, under the Dorado rule, that the admission in evidence of the defendant's incriminating statements, under the circumstances shown here, constituted prejudicial error and requires reversal. ( People v. Stewart, supra; People v. Curry, 232 Cal.App.2d 146 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 513]; People v. Moore, 232 Cal.App.2d 317 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 662].) The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded.