Does appellant have to argue that the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion for acquittal after the prosecution presented its case-in-chief?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jackson, F066957 (Cal. App. 2015):
2. Appellant also argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying appellant's motion for acquittal following the presentation of the prosecution's case-in-chief. As we have already concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction, we do not need to analyze appellant's argument further. (See People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 200.)
"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
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
In a motion to dismiss one or both of appellant's prior strike convictions, can appellant appeal against the finding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion? (California, United States of America)
In arguing that the trial court abused its power to deny a motion to sever an indecent exposure charge from a sexual assault charge, does defendant rely on Earle v Earle to argue that the motion was abused? (California, United States of America)
Does appellant have any legal authority to support his contention that the trial court erred in denying him a motion to withdraw his plea? (California, United States of America)
Can a Defendant argue on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his section 1118.1 motion? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law supporting a motion for relief from default where the trial court refused to allow the appellant to present any evidence to refute the motion? (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 is the test for denying a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion under the first two grounds? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant obtain a new trial on the grounds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny the motion on the same grounds as the previous motion? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
