Is there any legal or logical reason why one defendant, where substantial evidence has been introduced to sustain his conviction, should be exonerated and allowed to escape punishment for his crime?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Salas, F063978 (Cal. App. 2013):
conviction for their crimes is not any legal or logical reason why another defendant, where substantial evidence has been introduced to sustain his conviction, should be exonerated and be permitted to escape punishment for his crime.' [Citation.]" (People v. Palmer, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 861.)
"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
Can a defendant who is convicted of receiving stolen property in one crime, but never charged or convicted of the other crime, be required to pay restitution for losses sustained in other crimes? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for establishing substantial evidence against a defendant who alleges substantial evidence does not support his conviction? (California, United States of America)
Can a court correct an error that resulted in a sentence being issued to a defendant who was convicted of a lesser crime but who is convicted of the lesser crime of assault? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant is convicted of multiple crimes arising out of the same act or an indivisible course of conduct, can they be convicted of more than one of the crimes? (California, United States of America)
Does Section 654 of the California Criminal Code allow a court to stay the execution of a sentence for a lesser, less severely punishable crime, but more severely punishable, crime-preventable, offence? (California, United States of America)
What is the law on unanimity in a criminal case where the evidence of a crime is only a single crime but the evidence supports the theory of the crime? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will the Court reverse the conviction of defendant in the second-degree murder trial of a man convicted of the crime of murder for making false statements about the crime scene? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
Can a jury use uncharged crime evidence to determine that defendant was more likely to have committed the charged crimes because he committed the uncharged crimes? (California, United States of America)
What is a reasonable inference for a judge to conclude that a person who has not been convicted of a crime has committed a crime by way of reasoning? (California, United States of America)
