People v. Watters

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Reyes

    12 Cal.3d 486 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 180 times
    Holding inadmissible a subjective psychiatric opinion and noting the distinction made in Terrell, supra, 138 Cal.App.2d 35, 57

    That the victim's television set was being taken from his apartment when Mr. Meade interrupted the [murderer], and the fact that the victim's wallet was discovered in Reyes' apartment was circumstantial evidence that [ ] [he] intended to take these items by force and fear from the victim at the time of the killing. ( People v. Cavanaugh, 44 Cal.2d 252, 266 [ 282 P.2d 53], cert. den. 350 U.S. 950 [100 L.Ed. 828, 76 S.Ct. 325]; People v. Watters, 246 Cal.App.2d 154, 157 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 494]; People v. Baglin, 271 Cal.App.2d 411, 417 [ 76 Cal.Rptr. 863].) [ ] Reyes admitted that just a few hours before going to the victim's house he had stolen some hubcaps from a parked truck near his home because he wanted the hubcaps.

  2. People v. Gordon

    47 Cal.App.3d 465 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 19 times
    In People v. Gordon (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 465 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 840], the defendant offered a contention similar to Stark's that "the trial court erred in refusing to quash the indictment pursuant to Penal Code section 995" because, among other things, the deputy district attorney "fail[ed] to properly advise the grand jury on certain principles of law."

    Where a police officer merely provides an opportunity for a defendant with a preexisting intent to commit an offense there is no entrapment. ( People v. Watters, 246 Cal.App.2d 154 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 494].) (14) The question of whether a defendant was entrapped is generally one for the trier of fact and where the finding of no entrapment is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal.