¶1— I dissent. I do not think that appellant had any defense under the pleas of “ once *433in jeopardy” and “former acquittal.” If a man in one part of liis newspaper says that a certain person is a thief, and in another part' that he killed his mother, the two libels are just as distinct as are the crimes of larceny and matricide. Putting the two things under one headline, or “article” makes no difference. If the two libels should appear in the same issue of the newspaper, there would be an identity of time of publication; but they would be distinct in every other respect. That identity of time would no more make the two libels one than would a unity of time alone make a joint tenancy at common law.
79 Cal. 428
People v. Stephens
Decided June 5, 1889
California Supreme Court · decided 1889-06-05
The principal facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The evidence offered in support of the pleas of once in jeopardy and former acquittal consisted of the record of a previous prosecution, trial, and verdict of acquittal of the defendant in the same court upon a charge of having published in another paragraph of the same newspaper article which contained the libelous charge, specified in the information in this case, a distinct charge of and concerning Horace Bell,…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1889-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2003 · most notably 30 Cal. 2d 589 - People v. Greer (1947), People v. McDaniels (1902)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →