What evidence and inference was sufficient to prove the minor's lack of ownership beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Bryant V. (In re Bryant V.), B256963 (Cal. App. 2015):
The evidence and inferences were sufficient to prove the minor's lack of ownership beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Mosley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1044, 1055 [every element of a crime must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt].)
All other issues are moot.
Page 5
The order is affirmed.
"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
What evidence would be sufficient to prove the premeditation allegation beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the absence of lingering doubt from a recitation of evidence the defense offered in an attempt to raise reasonable doubt raise a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the doctrine of reasonable doubt apply to a defendant's due process right to appeal against a jury verdict that diminished the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does evidence code section 1108 reduce the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a jury interpret the instructions of a jury as permitting a conviction on a standard less than beyond beyond beyond the reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the burden of proving all the elements of a crime have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Is evidence sufficient to convict a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances have the courts found that CALCRIM No. 220 of the California Criminal Code, or Cal.Crim No.220, is sufficient to compel a jury to find that a prosecutor must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does a competent, unconflicted counsel who submitted on the evidence at the preliminary hearing, should have argued to the trial court that this evidence did not establish the lawful duty element beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
