How has the court determined that defendant intended to rob a bank?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Canida, E065999 (Cal. App. 2017):
The totality of the evidence demonstrated that defendant's conduct engendered both actual and reasonable fear in the bank teller. (People v. Morehead (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 765, 778.) The evidence was therefore more than sufficient to support reasonable findings that defendant intended to rob the bank teller, and committed a direct act toward committing attempted robbery.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its factual determination for that factual determination? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a defendant's intent or mental state is a factor in determining whether they intended to commit an act of violence? (California, United States of America)
Does the denial of access to the courts by the Department of Justice to defend a civil case against a defendant who is not able to pay for a lawyer to represent him in court constitute a prima facie equal protection violation? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a defendant is competent to defend himself in court? (California, United States of America)
Is a claim for damages brought by defendant in a personal injury action brought by plaintiff against defendant in the Superior Court of Appeal against Defendant in a civil case? (California, United States of America)
What is the appellate court's role in determining whether a defendant satisfied his burden of producing clear and convincing evidence in the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Does Defendant have a claim that the trial court abused its discretion to treat Defendant as a "defendant" in a medical malpractice case? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
What are the consequences of a court finding that a motion brought by Attorney Defendants against Defendant Kendall was "frivolous and/or intended to harass"? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
