Title: P. v. Case
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S057156M
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: August 16, 2018

1 
Filed 8/15/18 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S057156 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
  
CHARLES EDWARD CASE, 
) 
 
) 
Sacramento County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
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 
 
 
 
2 
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.