People v. Wimberly
California Court of Appeal
5 Cal. App. 4th 439 (1992)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
Steven Wimberly (defendant) was charged with residential burglary and grand theft. Detective Osman, a police officer with 12 years of experience, was the sole witness at the preliminary hearing. Officer Yahn, who had one year of experience, authored the crime report and initially spoke to the victim and Mr. Schiro, the manager of the victim’s apartment complex. Osman reviewed Yahn’s report, interviewed Yahn, and further interviewed the victim. Osman did not personally speak with Schiro. At the preliminary hearing, Osman testified that the victim told Osman that the victim had locked the apartment and left that morning and that the victim did not give anyone permission to enter the apartment or take any property; when the victim returned, jewelry worth $3,000 was missing. Osman also testified that, according to Yahn, Schiro stated that on the day of the burglary, Schiro unlocked the apartment because Wimberly was the victim’s brother and asked Schiro to be let into the victim’s apartment. Schiro’s statement to Yahn was the only evidence that linked Wimberly to the crime. The magistrate held Wimberly on both counts. The superior court judge granted Wimberly’s motion to set aside the information. The prosecution (plaintiff) appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Woods, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
