People v. Heslen, 165 P.2d 250 (Cal. 1946). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Heslen, 165 P.2d 250 (Cal. 1946). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
100 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Saldana (calctapp, 1984-06-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1947 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1947 1986 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Saldana
Cal. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
(See People v. Heslen (1946) 27 Cal.2d 520, 521 [ 165 P.2d 250 ]; Pen.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Aikin
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
To enable the People to determine if they wished to request a reduction we issued this opinion on August 20, 1971, with a concluding paragraph advising that if the People filed a writing within seven days requesting a reduction of the judgment, we would effect it and affirm the judgment as so modified, citing People v. Shavers, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d 886 , 889-890 and People v. Heslen, 27 Cal.2d 520, 521 [ 165 P.2d 250 ], Otherwise, the judgment was to stand reversed.
discussed Cited "see" People v. Edgmon (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
Code, § 189; see People v. Heslen (Cal. 1945) 163 P.2d 21 , Cal.Sup.Ct., mod. 27 Cal.2d 520 [ 165 P.2d 250 ].) 5 Malice may be express or implied.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Minors. J.D. v. Southdakota (In re H.D.)
Cal. Ct. App. 5th · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
R. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 694 , 698, fn. 2, 116 Cal.Rptr. 292 [mother's failure to support her children was not an issue because it was undisputed she was financially unable to do so during her incarceration]; Adoption of Oukes (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 459 , 467, 92 Cal.Rptr. 390 ["[f]inancial inability may excuse the failure to send any funds for support of the children"]; see also Cattalini , supra , 72 Cal.App.2d at p. 667 , 165 P.2d 250 [when a parent's failure to provide financial support "was by reason of the inability to do so, less evidence than under other circumstances would naturally be r…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PEOPLE, Respondent,
v.
FRANK M. HESLEN, Appellant
Crim. 4619.
California Supreme Court.
Jan 18, 1946.
165 P.2d 250
J. Oscar Goldstein and Burton J. Goldstein for Appellant., Robert W. Kenny, Attorney General, David K. Lener, Deputy Attorney General, John Quincy Brown, District Attorney, Albert H. Mundt, Chief Deputy District Attorney, and John B. Heinrich, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.
Carter.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
CARTER, J.

In this ease a judgment imposing the death penalty upon defendant for first degree murder was reversed by this court on November 1, 1945, on the ground that the jury was erroneously instructed relative to the distinction between first and second degree murder. (People v. Heslen, (Cal.) 163 P.2d 21.) On November 29, 1945, pursuant to respondent’s petition, a rehearing was granted. The case was then placed on the calendar for argument at which time the respondent made a motion to modify the judgment by reducing it from a judgment of first degree murder to a judgment of second degree murder. Counsel for defendant[*521] appeared and stated that he would not resist the motion. Under all the circumstances the motion should be granted.

The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, modified by reducing it to murder of the second degree, and as so modified, is affirmed. The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to pronounce judgment upon defendant sentencing him for the term prescribed by law for murder of the second degree.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.