legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Jack CA1/5
William Davaughn Jack was convicted by a jury of pandering (Pen. Code, § 266i, subd. (a)(1); count one) and pimping (id., § 266h, subd. (a); count two). On appeal, Jack contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing an expert witness to testify to the ultimate issue of fact; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in permitting an investigating officer to offer expert testimony without being qualified as an expert; and (3) his pimping conviction is unsupported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale