¶1Upon an investigation of the record, and after listening to the oral argument of the appellant, we are not satisfied that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a postponement of the trial, and at any rate, it does not appear to us that any prejudice resulted to the defendant. As to .the appellant’s criticisms of the charge of the court, that charge is in our opinion clear and correct; nor do we find any merit in the point that the testimony of the prosecutrix is inherently improbable and therefore insufficient to support the verdict and judgment. Oh the contrary, an inspection of the record convinces us that they are amply sustained by the evidence. The judgment and order appealed from are therefore affirmed.
33 Cal. App. 197
164 P.2d 609
People v. Kitley
Decided March 12, 1917
California Court of Appeal · decided 1917-03-12
<p>APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. F. B. Ogden, Judge.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court,</p>
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1928
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1917-03-12
View the full empirical analysis of this case →