Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a California criminal case, such as a DUI case or a resisting arrest case, to access a law enforcement officer's personnel information when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant's arrest. The information ...
Volumes of the Thomson West annotated version of the California Penal Code; the other popular annotated version is Deering's, which is published by LexisNexis. The Penal Code of California forms the basis for the application of most criminal law, criminal procedure, penal institutions, and the execution of sentences, among other things, in the American state of California.
[5] [25] The word cop is slang for police officer; the phrase is derived by analogy from contempt of court, which, unlike contempt of cop, is an offense in many jurisdictions (e.g., California Penal Code section 166, making contempt of court a misdemeanor). Similar to this is the phrase "disturbing the police", a play on "disturbing the peace".
Read what charges the District attorney has filed in court against the defendant (e.g. "You have been charged with violation of Section 243 of the Penal Code, Battery.") [13] If the DA decides not to file charges against the defendant, then the defendant is set free. The judge may ask the defendant if they waive their right to hear the charges.
California Penal Code section 15 defines a "crime" or "public offense" as "an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, any of the following punishments: Death; Imprisonment; Fine; Removal from office; or,
The prosecution moved ahead and Russo convicted McCutchen of the following charges: First-degree criminal contempt for violating the court order of protection. Resisting arrest. ... and the rule ...
Tooley, [8] the English court again found that when resisting an unlawful arrest, the death of an individual would result in a manslaughter charge instead of a murder charge. [9] When the United States separated from England, the common law was adopted by the new American courts and the right to resist unlawful arrest was clearly recognized. [10]
For example, California "stop and identify" law, Penal Code §647(e) had wording [37] [38] [39] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity.