green
Positive treatment
12.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Brown
(4×)
Jackson simultaneously petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus based on ineffective assistance of counsel. 4 Id. at 282, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Ochoa
In People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 , we cited section 977's provisions that a defendant could not waive presence for certain fundamental proceedings (arraignment, plea, preliminary hearing, the taking of evidence by the trier of fact, and sentencing), but could waive presence for "`all other proceedings.'" (Jackson, at p. 309, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 .) We further observed a third category; unlike the first two categories, the fundamental and "`all other'" proceedings, for which a defendant was entitled to be present, we noted "the accused is …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Napulou
People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d 264, 304 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 623 , 618 P.2d 149, 169 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1035 , 101 S.Ct. 1750 , 68 L.Ed.2d 232 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Clark
(2×)
E.g., State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz. 433, 438 , 719 P.2d 1049, 1054 (1986); People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d 264, 304 , 618 P.2d 149 , 168 Cal. Rptr. 603, 623 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1035 , 101 S.Ct. 1750 , 68 L.Ed.2d 232 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Hinds
Appellant claims two additional Miranda violations, asserting that his request to make a telephone call to his stepfather was a second invocation of *236 appellant’s Miranda rights (citing People v. Burton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 375, 383-384 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 491 P.2d 793 ]), and that the continued interrogation after appellant requested the tape recorder be turned off constitutes a further violation of Miranda (citing People v. Braeseke (1979) 25 Cal.3d 691, 702-703 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 602 P.2d 384 ] [reaffirmed upon remand from the United States Supreme Court, 28 Cal.3d 86, 87 ( 168 Cal.Rptr. …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hodges
(2×)
The rule, however, does not extend to comments on the state of the evidence or on the failure of the defense to introduce material evidence or to call logical witnesses.” People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d 264 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 623 , 618 P.2d 149, 169 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1035 , 101 S.Ct. 1750 , 68 L.Ed.2d 232 (1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Nicholas
We note that all of the lower court’s ruling on the voluntariness and admissibility of defendant’s confession was made prior to People v. Pettingill (1978) 21 Cal.3d 231 [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 861 , 578 P.2d 108 ] (decided May 9, 1978), and People v. Braeseke (1979) 25 Cal.3d 691 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 602 P.2d 384 ] (originally decided Nov. 15, 1979; vacated May 12, 1980; reinstated People v. Braeseke (1980) 28 Cal.3d 86, 87 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ](Aug. 28, 1980), judgment stayed Oct. 3, (Oct. 14, 1980) 449 U.S. 895 [ 66 L.Ed.2d 125 , 101 S.Ct. 261 ])).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Woodruff
(2×)
"An 'abstract assertion' regarding the burden on defense counsel 'cannot be used as a substitute for a showing of genuine need.' " ( People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434 , 447, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 213 , 11 P.3d 968 ; see People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 , 287, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 [no abuse of discretion where denied application for cocounsel made no "factual assertions," instead relying generally on the " 'circumstances surrounding the case' "]; People v. Verdugo , supra , 50 Cal.4th at p. 278 , 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 803 , 236 P.3d 1035 [application for second counsel insufficient b…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Lancaster
(2×)
The Jackson court distinguished Pierce because there counsel had admitted his lack of prior experience might necessitate additional legal assistance. ( Jackson, supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 287 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ; see Pierce v. United States, supra, 402 A.2d at p. 1245 .) No such admission was made in Jackson , and the trial court had extensive opportunity to evaluate counsel's ability before it ruled on the motion for additional counsel. ( Jackson, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 282, 287-288, 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 .) Jackson was concerned with the scope of the trial court's inq…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Waidla
(2×)
Under the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, a criminal defendant does not have a right to be personally present at a particular proceeding unless his appearance is necessary to prevent “interference with [his] opportunity for effective cross-examination.” (Kentucky v. Stincer (1987) 482 U.S. 730, 744-745, fn. 17 [ 107 S.Ct. 2658, 2667 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 ]; accord, id. at p. 740 [ 107 S.Ct. at p. 2664 ].) *742 Similarly, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, a criminal defendant does not have a right to be personally present at a particular proceeding unless he finds …
examined
Cited "see"
People v. Robertson
(4×)
(See People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 178-180 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ]; accord, People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 315 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Rodriguez, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 777-779 [1978 statute].) He argues, however, the court erred in failing to allocate any burden on the prosecution.
examined
Cited "see"
People v. Williams
(4×)
(Compare, Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 675, 677, 678, 700 [80 L.Ed.2d at pp. 685-687, 701] [defendant, in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, submitted 14 affidavits from friends, neighbors and relatives stating that if asked, they would have testified defendant was essentially a good person who was worried about his family's financial problems]; see People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 293-296 [ 168 Cal. Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ] [rejecting ineffectiveness claim because "defendant has failed to demonstrate (by his petition for habeas corpus or otherwise) what mitigating evidence…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hendricks
(2×)
When a defendant undergoes a jury trial any competent defense counsel will inform him of his right to call witnesses on his own behalf, of his right to testify or not to testify, and, in the absence of unusual circumstances, will cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution.” (Id. at p. 366, italics added; accord, People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 314 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ] (plur. opn.).) We implicitly recognized two points in Murphy .
examined
Cited "see"
People v. Guerra
(4×)
(People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 330 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 568 ]; see People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 346 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 425 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 732 , 590 P.2d 859 , 2 A.L.R.4th 1 ].) The Attorney General’s assertion that “[u]nder the facts [defendant] could not have intended to kill one victim without having the same intent to kill the other” seems not to be properly relevant to the Sedeño exception, which looks to the conclusion the jury’s verdict necessarily implies rather than to an inference the evidence may supp…
examined
Cited "see"
Tichnell v. State
(4×)
See People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3rd 264, 168 Cal. Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 (1980); People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3rd 142, 158 Cal. Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Matthews
(2×)
See People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d 264 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149, 184 (1980) (Bird, C.J., dissenting); People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d 142 , 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587, 605 (1979); People v. Murphy, 8 Cal.3d 349 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 , 596 n. 2 (1972). .
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Bowen
(2×)
As this court has stated before, “Trial tactics are largely a matter left to counsel and reviewing courts are loathe to second-guess counsel in such matters.” (People v. Mastin (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 978, 987 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 780 ]; see *1031 also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 289 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ], cert. den. (1981) 450 U.S. 1035 [ 68 L.Ed.2d 232 , 101 S.Ct. 1750 ]; People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 158 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ].) This is especially true in this case where the tactical choice is so patently reasonable.
examined
Cited "see"
Robert Alton Harris v. R. Pulley, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin
(4×)
See People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d at 316-17 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ; People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d at 178-80,158 CakRptr. 281, 599 P.2d 587 (plurality opinion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Martin v. Blackburn
(2×)
See People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d 264 , 618 P.2d 149, 174-75 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603, 628-29 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Johnson v. Cullen
(2×)
(People v. Medina, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 904 , 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 [counsel absent from reading of testimony to jury]; see also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 314, 315 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 [parallel citation omitted] [counsel authorized to make tactical decisions and control court proceedings without first obtaining personal waiver from defendant].) Defendant’s suggestion that counsel’s decision to forgo the hearing reflected his incompetence cannot be sustained in light of the reasonable tactical consideration which, according to counsel, induced that…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Lewis
(2×)
(People v. Massie (1998) 19 Cal.4th 550, 576 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 967 P.2d 29 ]; see also In re Anthony J. (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 962, 971 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 238 ] [burden to establish whether accused’s statements are voluntary is greater if the accused is a juvenile rather than an adult].) However, if there is conflicting testimony on whether a defendant waived his Miranda rights, “we must accept that version of events which is most favorable to the People, to the extent that it is supported by the record.” (People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 300 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ].…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Lewis
(2×)
Contrary to Detective Lean's testimony, defendant testified that he was denied his request to talk to his mother before and after he gave his statement. (i) Minor's Fifth Amendment Privilege A minor has a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which precludes admission of a minor's confession obtained without the minor's voluntary, intelligent, and knowledgeable waiver of his or her constitutional rights. ( In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1, 55 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 ; People v. Burton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 375, 383-384 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 491 P.2d 793 .) To determine whether a m…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Williamss
(2×)
See also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 305 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; CALJIC No. 8.42 (1991 rev.).) “Heat of passion may not be based upon revenge.” (People v. Burnett (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 469, 478 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 ].
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Johnson
(4×)
(People v. Medina, supra, 51 Cal. 3d at p. 904 [counsel absent from reading of testimony to jury]; see also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 , 314 315 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ] [counsel authorized to make tactical decisions and control court proceedings without first obtaining personal waiver from defendant].) Defendant’s suggestion that counsel’s decision to forgo the hearing reflected his incompetence cannot be sustained in light of the reasonable tactical consideration which, according to counsel, induced that decision.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Weddle
(2×)
Code, § 1170, subd. (f)(1).) This is not, however, the same kind of comparative review discussed in Lynch and Dillon . 8 Lynch is authority for intercase proportionality review, comparing “the challenged penalty with the punishments prescribed for the same offense in other jurisdictions . . . ,” and ascertaining “whether more serious crimes are punished in this state less severely than the offense in question. . . .” (People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 183 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 281 , 599 P.2d 587 ], citing In re Lynch, supra, 8 Cal.3d at pp. 426-427; see also People v. Jackson (1980) …
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Drake
(6×)
See also People v. Jackson, 28 Cal.3d 86 , 618 P.2d 149 , 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 (1980) (death penalty laws are presumed constitutional); In re Anderson, 69 Cal.2d 613 , 447 P.2d 117 , 73 Cal.Rptr. 21 (1968).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Frierson
(4×)
Under these circumstances, we will not proceed to second-guess trial counsel's choice of tactics." ( Id. at p. 585; see also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 290 [ 168 Cal. Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ].) This defendant has been tried twice, by two different juries.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Carreon
(2×)
(Id., at pp. 227-228; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132-133 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; see also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 315 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 781 , 562 P.2d 684 ]; Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 302 . 531 P.2d 1086 ]; People v. Levey (1973) 8 Cal.3d 648 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 516 . 504 P.2d 452 ]; Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1983 supp. *573 pt. 1) Proceedings Before Trial, § 255E, pp. 277-280.) W…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Yu
(2×)
(Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609 [ 14 L.Ed.2d 106 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 ]; see also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 304 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ].) However, here the prosecutor did not comment on defendant’s failure to take the stand and testify, he merely explained to the prospective jury members that any person has the right to remain silent.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Haskett
(4×)
"Admission of photos of victims lies within the discretion of the trial court unless their probative value is clearly outweighed by their prejudicial effect." ( People v. Cruz (1980) 26 Cal.3d 233, 253 [ 162 Cal. Rptr. 1, 605 , P.2d 830]; see also People v. Jackson (1980) 28 Cal.3d 264, 302-303 [ 168 Cal. Rptr. 603 , 618 P.2d 149 ]; People v. Milan (1973) 9 Cal.3d 185, 194 [ 107 Cal. Rptr. 68 , 507 P.2d 956 ]; People v. Murphy (1972) 8 Cal.3d 349, 363 [ 105 Cal. Rptr. 138 , 503 P.2d 594 ].) Here the trial court carefully weighed each photograph's relevance and probative value against its tende…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BARRY FLOYD BRAESEKE, Defendant and Appellant
v.
BARRY FLOYD BRAESEKE, Defendant and Appellant
Crim. 21049.
California Supreme Court.
Aug 28, 1980.
Cited by 33 opinions | Published
Opinion
THE COURT.The Supreme Court of the United States on May 12, 1980, issued its order and judgment that “the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in this cause is vacated, and that this cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of California to consider whether its judgment is based on federal or state constitutional grounds, or both.” 446 U.S. 932 [64 L.Ed.2d 784, 100 S.Ct. 2147].
[*87] Pursuant to this mandate we have reexamined our opinion in this case (reported at 25 Cal.3d 691 [159 Cal.Rptr. 684, 602 P.2d 384]) and certify our judgment is based upon Miranda v. Arizona (1965) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974] and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Inasmuch as we deem it unnecessary to alter our prior opinion, we reiterate it in its entirety.