P. v. Case
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 8/15/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) CHARLES EDWARD CASE, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. ) ____________________________________) S057156 Sacramento County Super. Ct. No. 93F05175 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING THE COURT: The opinion in this matter filed May 31, 2018, and appearing at 5 Cal.5th 1, is modified as follows: The final sentence at the end of the first paragraph on page 45 — which currently states, “In any event, the argument fails on its merits.” — is deleted. The following sentence is inserted to start the subsequent paragraph on page 45: To the extent defendant raises a challenge on an issue other than credibility, the argument fails on its merits. In the last sentence of the first full paragraph on page 45, the word “convincingly” is inserted between the words “not” and “explain.” The sentence now reads: Defendant says that “[d]emonstrating that Reed did not know about the inconsistencies between Langford’s and Webster’s testimony was important to 1 appellant’s defense that Webster framed appellant,” but does not convincingly explain why that is so. The modification does not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
