moribund claim in California

2016He 8 In People v. Monjaras, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant‟s contention that because the victim of an armed robbery “could not say whether the pistol in defendant‟s waistband was a gun or a toy,” there was insufficient evidence the weapon was real. ( 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1435 .) The court published its opinion “to say in no uncertain terms that a moribund claim like that raised by defendant has breathed its last breath.” (Ibid.) We reject Minor‟s effort to resurrect this moribund claim. 25 argues the firearm was not “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle” nor did it have the other char

2016He 8 In People v. Monjaras, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s contention that because the victim of an armed robbery “could not say whether the pistol in defendant’s waistband was a gun or a toy,” there was insufficient evidence the weapon was real. ( 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1435 .) The court published its opinion “to say in no uncertain terms that a moribund claim like that raised by defendant has breathed its last breath.” (Ibid.) We reject Minor’s effort to resurrect this moribund claim. 25 argues the firearm was not “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle” nor did it have the other char

2014Law, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th 976 is to the same effect.

2014(See People v. Law (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 976, 979 .) 8 If anything, the evidence in Monjaras supporting the jury’s true finding that the robbery was committed while the defendant was personally armed with a firearm was even less weighty than in this case, although the circumstances of the robbery were remarkably similar: “Here, defendant demanded of the female victim, ‘Bitch, give me your purse,’ then pulled up his shirt and displayed the handle of a black pistol tucked in his waistband.

1984The mainstay of Belmont’s contradiction of Jahn is the claim that “[plaintiff’s] performance in California cannot give jurisdiction over [defendant]; it is [defendant’s] activity that must provide the basis for jurisdiction.” {Id., 31 Cal.App.3d at p. 288 ; see also Cornell, supra, 38 Cal.App.3d at p. 316 ; Harkness, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d at p. 691 .) This claim is rebuffed by Jahn and other authorities. 7 It disinters the moribund doctrine that “presence” in the forum state is indispensable to the exercise of jurisdiction.

1984The mainstay of Belmont’s contradiction of Jahn is the claim that “[plaintiff’s] performance in California cannot give jurisdiction over [defendant]; it is [defendant’s] activity that must provide the basis for jurisdiction.” {Id., 31 Cal.App.3d at p. 288 ; see also Cornell, supra, 38 Cal.App.3d at p. 316 ; Harkness, supra, 60 Cal.App.3d at p. 691 .) This claim is rebuffed by Jahn and other authorities. 7 It disinters the moribund doctrine that “presence” in the forum state is indispensable to the exercise of jurisdiction.

1965That Hornich does not express a moribund doctrine appears from the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Perkins, 286 F.2d 150 , affirming conviction under section 1461, 18 United States Code.