What is the test for establishing that evidence of identity is so weak at the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, C078781 (Cal. App. 2016):
identity, to entitle a reviewing court to set aside a jury's finding of guilt the evidence of identity must be so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all.' [Citations.]" (People v. Mohamed (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 515, 521.) We cannot say, on the record before us, that the evidence of identity at the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief was "so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all." (Ibid.)
"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 piece of evidence in the possession of the prosecution is destroyed because the prosecution finds it necessary to consume the evidence in order to test it, does the destruction violate due process? (California, United States of America)
Does the prosecution have to avoid using relevant, persuasive evidence to prove an element of a crime because that element might also be established through other evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the use of evidence of criminal street gang activity by a defendant to establish a predicate offence in a prosecution for active participation in a criminal gang constitute prejudicial or prejudicial evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the prosecution have to forgo the use of relevant, persuasive evidence to prove an element of a crime because the element might also be established through other evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of evidence used in cases where the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the Court have authority to exclude evidence where a defendant has been found to be contrary to the evidence code under section 352 of the California Evidence Code? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court have a duty to give an instruction that the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to establish any element of the crime including the element of intent? (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)
Can a motion for a new trial be granted when newly discovered evidence contradicts the strongest prosecution evidence? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant move for acquittal on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case at the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief? (California, United States of America)
