People v. Williams, 547 P.2d 1000 (Cal. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Williams, 547 P.2d 1000 (Cal. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
432 citation events (123 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Barrett (cal, 2025-06-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Barrett (2×)
Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667, fn. 4 (Williams) [“It is the general rule, of course, that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal absent a specific and timely objection at trial on the ground sought to be urged on appeal”].) In a related argument, defendant claims the oral testimony of Wilson and Hill to prove the contents of the destroyed kites was not sufficient to meet the “Secondary Evidence Rule.” (Evid.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Taylor CA1/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [“we do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us”].) DISPOSITION The sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded for resentencing with the direction to the trial court to strike all but one of Taylor’s prior strike convictions (leaving one under § 422) and to reconsider his sentence. 21 _________________________ Markman, J.* We concur: _________________________ Stewart, P.J. _________________________ Richman, J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ponder CA1/2
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [“we do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us”].) On remand, the trial court may also consider whether to substitute lesser included enhancements as suggested by defendant in his motion to strike unless our high court rules that trial courts do not have such discretion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Assn. v. Super. Ct.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 668 [Evidence Code Section 1202 “deals with the impeachment of a declarant whose hearsay statement is in evidence as distinguished from the impeachment of a witness who has testified”].) Under Evidence Code section 1202, prior inconsistent statements may not be admitted for their truth, but only for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarant.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Brown CA5
Cal. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
(People v. Nunez and Satele (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1, 30 , citing People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667, fn. 4 [“It is the general rule … that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal absent a specific and timely objection at trial on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.”].) On the merits, even assuming S.L.’s statement to Hall about seeing the man in the white T-shirt was erroneously admitted, the error did not render the trial fundamentally unfair such that it constituted a constitutional due process error nor was the error prejudicial …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Saldana
Cal. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 669 (superseded by statute on other grounds) [during deliberations, jury asks to hear confession again and "soon thereafter the guilty verdict was returned"—held, prejudicial].) The error was prejudicial.10 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed. 10 Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether the court erroneously denied Saldana's motion for new trial or committed other errors asserted in Saldana's opening brief. 43 NARES, J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Palacio CA3
Cal. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
As the California Supreme Court has held, a defendant forfeits a Fourth Amendment claim “by not making a specific and timely objection on this ground [in the trial court].” (People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 177 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 555, fn. 5 .) This holding reflects the well settled rule that “questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a specific and timely objection in the trial court on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.” ( Turner, supra, 8 Cal.4th 137 , italic…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mosley
Cal. · 2015 · confidence medium
(See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) 567 U.S. _ , _ [ 183 L.Ed.2d 450 , 132 S.Ct. 2566, 2593 ].) Like the high court, this court has regularly said that we will “not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so.” (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; see Verdin v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1096, 1102 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 287 , 183 P.3d 1250 ]; People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 534 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 , 73 P.3d 1137 ]; Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (199…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Raygosa CA2/4
Cal. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“It is the general rule, of course, that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal absent a specific and timely objection at trial on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.” (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667, fn. 4 .) 17 Nor can we agree with defendant that the erroneous admission of the challenged evidence was so serious as to violate his federal constitutional rights to due process, rendering his trial fundamentally unfair.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Maciel
Cal. · 2013 · confidence medium
(People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667, fn. 4 [―It is the general rule, of course, that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal absent a specific and timely objection at trial on the ground sought to be urged on appeal‖].) Nor does defendant demonstrate that any objection would have been futile. 63 Defendant also contends that Witness No. 13‘s statements that Torres had admitted being involved in a prior murder were improperly admitted.
examined Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Edwards (8×) also: Cited "see"
Cal. · 2013 · confidence medium
We held that the contents of the report ―were admitted under a ‗firmly rooted‘ exception to the hearsay rule that carries sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the requirements of the confrontation clause.‖ (Id. at p. 159; People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 978-980 [same] (Beeler).) In light of Clark and Beeler, defendant‘s failure to object during his 1996 trial ―was excusable, since governing law at the time . . . afforded scant grounds for objection.‖ (People v. Johnson (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1411, fn. 2 .) ― ‗[W]e have excused a failure to object where to…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. MacIel
Cal. · 2013 · confidence medium
(People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667, fn. 4 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ] [“It is the general rule, of course, that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal absent a specific and timely objection at trial on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.”].) Nor does defendant demonstrate that any objection would have been futile.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) P. v. Nunez & Satele
Cal. · 2013 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667, fn. 4 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ] [“It is the general rule . . . that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal absent a specific and timely objection at trial on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.”].) On the merits, it is improper for a prosecutor to withhold “crucial evidence properly belonging in the case-in-chief'' (Friend, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 44 ; see People v. Carter (1957) 48 Cal.2d 737, 753 [ 312 P.2d 665 ]), and to present it in rebuttal to take unfair advantage of a d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Packer v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ] [“[W]e do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us.”]; In re Michael G. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 283, 295 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 747 P.2d 1152 ] [quoting same].) Even those courts that have recognized a defendant’s due process right to challenge an indictment on the ground of grand juror bias have concluded that the defendant “bears a heavy burden of showing actual bias and prejudice.” (U.S. v. Finley (N.D.I11. 1988) 705 F.Supp. 1297, 1307 , …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Dement
Cal. · 2011 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667, fn. 4 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ] [“It is the general rule, of course, that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal absent a specific and timely objection at trial on the ground sought to be urged on appeal.”].) The claim also lacks merit.
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Blacksher
Cal. · 2011 · confidence medium
(People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 669 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) Because Eva did not testify at trial, those sections do not apply here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Urke
Cal. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
(Vanella, supra, 265 Cal.App.2d at p. 469 .) II Defendant contends that the probation condition prohibiting him from being in the “presence” of minors is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. 3 However, there is a fundamental principle of judicial restraint which prevents us from reaching constitutional issues “unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us.” (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; see also Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Giles
Cal. · 2007 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 66 [ 195 P.2d 1 ] [‘ “It is a well-established principle that this Court will not decide constitutional questions where other grounds are available and dispositive of the issues of the case.” ’]; People v. Barton (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 542, 546 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 7 ].)” (Rider v. County of San Diego (1991) 1 Cal.4th 1, 17 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 490 , 820 P.2d 1000 ] (conc, opn. of George, J.); see also Morning Star Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization (2006) 38 Cal.4th 324, 332, 342 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 47 , 132 P.3d 249 ]; People v. Mc…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Corella
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
(People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 668-669 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; People v. Jacobs, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1449 .) Striking Mrs. Corella’s testimony does not mean the words were not spoken.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rojas v. Superior Court
Cal. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co. v. Rauch (5th Cir. 1981) 644 F.2d 1097, 1107 .) 6 “The official comments of the California Law Revision Commission on the various sections of the Evidence Code are declarative of the intent not only of the draft[ers] of the code but also of the legislators who subsequently enacted it. [Citation.]” (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667-668 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) 7 We grant the request of amici curiae Elizabeth Bader and Ron Kelly for judicial notice of the Commission’s records regarding the confidentiality provisions here at issue.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
Cal. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
By deferring a decision on the disposition of unpaid residue in the damage fund, the plan of distribution not only followed the procedure mandated by Code of Civil Procedure section 384 but also adopted a course of action consistent with the principle that “we do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us.” (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 , 902 P.2d 225 ]; Walker v. K…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority
Cal. · 2003 · confidence medium
Code, supra, foll. § 830, p. 299.) Because the official comments of the California Law Revision Commission “are declarative of the intent not only of the draftsman of the code but also of the legislators who subsequently enacted it” (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667-668 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]), the comments are persuasive, albeit not conclusive, evidence of that intent (Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 542 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 28 P.3d 151 ]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McKay
Cal. · 2002 · confidence medium
Assn. (1988) 485 U.S. 439, 445, 446 [ 108 S.Ct. 1319, 1323, 1324 , 99 L.Ed.2d 534 ]; see also Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering (1984) 467 U.S. 138, 157-158 [ 104 S.Ct. 2267, 2279 , 81 L.Ed.2d 113 ]; Ashwander v. Valley Authority (1936) 297 U.S. 288, 346-347 [ 56 S.Ct. 466, 482-483 , 80 L.Ed. 688 ] (conc. opn. of Brandeis, J.); People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) “Principles of judicial restraint counsel that we not reach out to decide gratuitously constitutional questions of first impression.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walker v. Kiousis
Cal. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
(Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 , 902 P.2d 225 ], quoting People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) If “ ‘ “other grounds are available and dispositive of the issues of the case,” ’ ” the court should rely on those grounds instead.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Francisco M.
Cal. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
(People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 668-669 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; People v. Hitchings (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 915, 921-922 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 484 ].) Since the inconsistent statements could not be considered to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused, use of a conditional examination may be inadequate to serve the interests of justice.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cam Thach Thi Le
Cal. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667-668 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ] [California Law Revision Commission comments are declarative of legislative intent].) Section 803, subdivision (b) “continues the substance of former Section 802.5.” (Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 50 West’s Ann.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cyndie C. v. Geraldine B.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
However, “ ‘we do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us.’ [Citations.]” (Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 , 902 P.2d 225 ], quoting People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) We therefore begin with the narrower question of what process was statutorily due.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hernandez
Cal. · 1998 · confidence medium
(Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230-231 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 207 , 902 P.2d 225 ] (Guardino); College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 898 , 882 P.2d 894 ]; In re Michael G. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 283, 295 [ 243 Cal.Rptr. 224 , 747 P.2d 1152 ]; People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 50 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d 468 ]; Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66 [ 195 P.2d 1 ].) The rule requiring that a court address a potentially dispositive statutory issue before turning to a constitutiona…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reyes
Cal. · 1998 · confidence medium
(Cone, and dis. opn. of Kennard, J., ante, at p. 764, fn. 3.) “ ‘[W]e do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us.’ (People v. Williams [(1976)] 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; [citations].) As the United States Supreme Court reiterated, ‘A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.’ (Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Prot.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Birks
Cal. · 1998 · confidence medium
The discussion is unnecessary to the court’s holding and, in keeping with the traditional rule that courts refrain from addressing constitutional questions unless required to resolve a given case (see College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 898 , 882 P.2d 894 ]; People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; People v. Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 393 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 850 , 949 P.2d 947 ] (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.)), I express no opinion on its correctness.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Superior Court (Jones)
Cal. · 1998 · confidence medium
(See People v. Chi Ko Wong (1976) 18 Cal.33d 698, 718 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 392 , 557 P.2d 976 ] [fitness determination committed to “ ‘the sound exercise of the juvenile court judge’s discretion’ ”], disapproved on another point, People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 34-35 [ 164 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 609 P.2d 468 ]; Jimmy H. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 709, 715 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 600 , 478 P.2d 32 ] [same]; People v. Allgood (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 434, 447 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 666 ] [same]; People v. Joe T. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 114, 119 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 329 ] [same], overruled on another point, People v.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ramos
Cal. · 1997 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 888, 894-896 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 773 ].) Submission of his prior testimony also satisfied the other foundational requirements of Evidence Code section 1291; thus, its admission was proper (People v. Bynum (1971) 4 Cal.3d 589, 600-601 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 241 , 483 P.2d 1193 ], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 669 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]) and constitutional (Pointer v. Texas, supra, 380 U.S. at p. 407 [ 85 S.Ct. at p. 1069 ]; Dowdell v. United States (1911) 221 U.S. 325, 330 [ 31 S.Ct. 590, 592 , 55 L.Ed. 7…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Kristin H.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Although the parties have engaged in a lengthy analysis of the right to effective assistance of counsel under constitutional principles of due process and fundamental fairness, our conclusion regarding the statutory right to competent counsel disposes of the mother's claim. (15) It is a well-established principle of judicial review that "... we do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us." ( People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal. Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) DISPOSITION As to the appeal (H014212), the orders app…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. Kimberly I.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
It is a well-established principle of judicial review that “. . . we do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us.” (People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) Disposition As to the appeal (H014212), the orders appealed from are affirmed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (2×)
Cal. · 1995 · confidence medium
To decide the issue at this time will thus serve the policy of "resolving concrete disputes if the consequence of a deferred decision will be lingering uncertainty in the law, especially when there is widespread public interest in the answer to a particular legal question." ( Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 170 [ 188 Cal. Rptr. 104 , 655 P.2d 306 ] [ripeness doctrine].) For all these reasons we begin by addressing petitioner's contention that its tax is not invalidated by section 53722. [4] (2) As urged by Justice George in his concurring opinion in Ri…
cited Cited as authority (rule) College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court
Cal. · 1994 · confidence medium
(De Lancie v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 865, 877, fn. 13 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 647 P.2d 142 ]; People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schmidt v. Southern California Rapid Transit District
Cal. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
(People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667-668 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; Davis v. Cordova Recreation & Park Dist. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 789, 796 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 358 ].)
examined Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Bradley (4×)
Cal. · 1992 · confidence medium
The principle that courts should avoid passing on the validity of statutes is thus related to, and frequently a particular application of, the broader principle that a court should decide a constitutional question only if it is absolutely necessary to do so. ( Rosenberg v. Fleuti (1963) 374 U.S. 449, 451 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 1000, 1002-1003 , 83 S.Ct. 1804 ]; People v. Leonard (1983) 34 Cal.3d 183, 187 [ 193 Cal. Rptr. 171 [ 666 P.2d 28 ]; People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal. Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) One way that courts can avoid passing on the constitutional validity of a stat…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of National City v. Wiener (2×)
Cal. · 1992 · confidence medium
Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 233 [ 149 Cal. Rptr. 239 , 583 P.2d 1281 ] [stating general rule]; People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal. Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) It is also part of the self-discipline of the United States Supreme Court, which calls it a "`fundamental rule of judicial restraint.'" ( Jean v. Nelson (1985) 472 U.S. 846, 854 [ 86 L.Ed.2d 664, 670-671 , 105 S.Ct. 2992 ].) The federal high court has *854 commanded all federal courts to follow the rule. ( Ibid. ) And it is a principle of decisionmaking to which the appellate courts of e…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Untitled California Attorney General Opinion
unknown court · 1992 · confidence medium
People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 (noting general rule that courts "do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter" presented), traditional principles of constitutional construction must be utilized to resolve this more complicated and novel legal question.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
Cal. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
(People v. Bennett (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 230, 238 [ 129 Cal.Rptr. 679 ].) “Whether one warning is sufficient to cover a subsequent interrogation is a factual question in each case.” (People v. Bynum (1971) 4 Cal.3d 589, 600 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 241 , 483 P.2d 1193 ], overruled on other grounds by People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 669 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 88 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) The facts we review are those testified to by Detective Caliian at the preliminary hearing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Thompson
Cal. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Rather, appellant contends that the advisement and waiver were not "reasonably contemporaneous" with his confession. ( People v. Bennett (1976) 58 Cal. App.3d 230, 238 [ 129 Cal. Rptr. 679 ].) "Whether one warning is sufficient to cover a subsequent interrogation is a factual question in each case." ( People v. Bynum (1971) 4 Cal.3d 589, 600 [ 94 Cal. Rptr. 241 , 483 P.2d 1193 ], overruled on other grounds by People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 669 [ 128 Cal. Rptr. 88 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) *1972 The facts we review are those testified to by Detective Callian at the preliminary hearing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Steven A. v. Rickie M. (2×)
Cal. · 1992 · confidence medium
(People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) The majority invoke the equal protection clause as a first resort rather than a last, without considering how trifling with a statute that has been used without challenge for nearly two decades may affect countless parents and children.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schild v. Rubin
Cal. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
(See People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) Disposition The judgment is reversed, and the injunction issued against the Schilds on July 23, 1990, is dissolved.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jacobo (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
(People v. Bynum (1971) 4 Cal.3d 589, 600 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 241 , 483 P.2d 1193 ], overruled on other grounds by People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 669 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ] [30-to 40-minute delay was a “reasonably contemporaneous period of time”]; People v. Meneley (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 41, 58 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 432 ] [15-minute delay was a “reasonably contemporaneous period of time”].) Appellant’s second reason for urging that his confessions should have been suppressed is they “were the product of psychological coercion.” In reviewing this claim we are mindful t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Slone v. Inyo County Juvenile Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
It is inconsistent with the mode of operation required by the act to allow other departments of the court acting under the general authority of superior courts to act upon cases within the Juvenile Court Law over which the juvenile court is exercising its jurisdiction.” (Id., at p. 471; accord: People v. Browning (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 125, 140-141 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 420 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 669 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) The Sanchez holding has also been applied in juvenile dependency proceedings before the juvenile court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Breaux v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
(Pasillas v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., supra, 156 Cal.App.3d 312, 347 ; cf. Beltran v. State of Cal. (9th Cir. 1988) 871 F.2d 777, 783 , reversing Beltran v. State of Cal. (N.D.Cal. 1985) 617 F.Supp. 948 with instructions to dismiss.) Mindful of the general rule that a court will not reach constitutional questions unless required to do so to dispose of the matter before it (Cumero v. Public Employment Relations Bd., supra, 49 Cal.3d 575, 576 ; People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; People v. Buckley (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 489, 495 [ 228 Cal.R…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Superior Court (Robert L.)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
But the statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that the statutory requirement of ‘full investigation’ has been *60 met; and that the question has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.” (See also People v. Browning (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 125, 137-138 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 420 ], overruled on other grounds in People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 669 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) This requirement of a statement of reasons was codified in section 707, subdiv…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. State Water Resources Control Board
Cal. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
(See Tribe, American Constitutional Law (1988) § 3-10; cf., e.g., Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66 [ 195 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ].) The question whether an alleged unconstitutional application of a regulation may be avoided is not governed by the conclusional allegations of the complaint.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael G. v. Superior Court (2×)
Cal. · 1988 · confidence medium
By so concluding we avoid deciding whether the Legislature could constitutionally override the inherent contempt power of the courts. (11) "[W]e do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us." ( People v. Williams (1976) 16 Cal.3d 663, 667 [ 128 Cal. Rptr. 888 , 547 P.2d 1000 ]; Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66 [ 195 P.2d 1 ]; see also 13 Cal.Jur.3d, Constitutional Law, § 57, pp. 106-107.) [10] *296 (2d) Although we conclude the limitations as stated in sections 207 and 601, subdivision (b) were not in…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BENNY WAYNE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant
Crim. 19098.
California Supreme Court.
Apr 2, 1976.
547 P.2d 1000
Counsel, Harold F. Tyvoll, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Michael Lloyd for Defendant and Appellant., Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Kremer, Assistant Attorney General, Jay M. Bloom and Steven H. Zeigen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Clark.
Cited by 155 opinions  |  Published

Opinion

CLARK, J.

Defendant appeals from judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him of first degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 211a.) The judgment must be reversed.

Three masked gunmen robbed a grocery store. The tallest, armed with a revolver, forced the manager to open the safe. Meanwhile, the shortest, also armed with a pistol, walked within a few feet of the manager, ordering the customers to lie on the floor. The third robber, armed with a shotgun, remained at the front of the store. Removing approximately $1,200 from the safe and cash registers, the robbers escaped by automobile.

Ten days later, defendant was arrested on a warrant for an unrelated charge; a shotgun and ammunition were found in the car.he was driving.

Subsequently, Thomas Morris was arrested for the robbery; his statement to Detective Eldon Smith implicated defendant and resulted in the charge against Morris being dropped.

Based on his voice and stature, the grocery store manager identified defendant at a lineup as the shortest of the three masked men; he repeated his identification of defendant at the preliminary hearing and at trial. None of the other five witnesses viewing the lineup was able to identify defendant.

At the preliminary hearing, the People called Morris but failed to elicit testimony from him adverse to defendant. In response to the prosecutor’s questions, Morris denied having told Detective Smith that defendant first asked him to participate in the robbery and then later admitted having used a handgun in its commission, obtaining approximately $1,100. The People then called Detective Smith who testified that Morris had indeed made these statements to him.

[*666] At trial, Morris being declared an unavailable witness within the meaning of section 240, subdivision (a)(5), of the Evidence Code, [1] his preliminary hearing testimony was admitted under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule set forth in section 1291, subdivision (a)(2), of the Evidence Code. [2] Detective Smith then repeated his testimony concerning Morris’ prior inconsistent statements, the statements being admitted as substantive evidence under section 1235 of the Evidence Code. [3]

Defendant contends that admitting Smith’s testimony regarding Morris’ prior inconsistent statements violated his right of confrontation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, to the United States Constitution.

Section 1235 of the Evidence Code provides in effect that a prior inconsistent statement of a witness is admissible not only to impeach his credibility but also to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein. (People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981, 985 [92 Cal.Rptr. 494, 479 P.2d 998] (Green II).) In People v. Green (1969) 70 Cal.2d 654 [75 Cal.Rptr. 782, 451 P.2d 422] (Green I), section 1235 was held unconstitutional as applied to admission at trial of prior inconsistent statements elicited at the preliminaiy hearing.

Green I was vacated in California v. Green (1970) 399 U.S. 149 [26 L.Ed.2d 489, 90 S.Ct. 1930], The high court held that admission of a[*667] witness’ prior inconsistent statement to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein does not violate the confrontation clause provided (1) the statement was made by the declarant in testifying at the preliminary hearing, or (2) the declarant testifies at trial. (399 U.S. at pp. 158-159, 165 [26 L.Ed.2d at pp. 497-498, 501]; People v. Green, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 985.) Morris’ prior inconsistent statements not having been made while testifying at the preliminary hearing, and Morris not having testified at trial, defendant contends he was denied his right to confront Morris.

However, we do not reach constitutional questions unless absolutely required to do so to dispose of the matter before us. {People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 481, 484-485 [82 Cal.Rptr. 724, 462 P.2d 580]; Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, Inc. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 53, 65-66 [195 P.2d 1]; Estate of Johnson (1903) 139 Cal. 532, 534 [73 P. 424].) We need not reach the constitutional question here because Smith’s testimony regarding Morris’ prior inconsistent statements was not admissible under section 1235 of the Evidence Code. [4]

Statutes are to be construed so as to effect the intent of the Legislature. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1859; Mercer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 112 [65 Cal.Rptr. 315, 436 P.2d 315]; Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equal. (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645 [335 P.2d 672].) The official comments of the California Law Revision Commission on the various sections of[*668] the Evidence Code are declarative of the intent not only of the draftsman of the code but also of the legislators who subsequently enacted it. (Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal.3d 150, 158, fn. 4 [98 Cal.Rptr. 649, 491 P.2d 1].) The commission’s comments to sections 1235 and 1202 indicate that section 1235 applies at trial only to prior inconsistent statements of a trial witness.

Section 1235 provides: “Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770.” [5] (Italics added.)

The commission’s comment to section 1235 states in pertinent part: “Section 1235 admits inconsistent statements of witnesses because the dangers against which the hearsay rule is designed to protect are largely nonexistent. The declarant is in court and may be examined and cross-examined in regard to his statements and their subject matter. In many cases, the inconsistent statement is more likely to be true than the testimony of the witness at the trial because it was made nearer in time to the matter to which it relates and is less likely to be influenced by the controversy that gave rise to the litigation. The trier of fact has the declarant before it and can observe his demeanor and the nature of his testimony as he denies or tries to explain away the inconsistency. Hence, it is in as good a position to determine the truth or falsity of the prior statement as it is to determine the truth or falsity of the inconsistent testimony given in court.” (Italics added.)

Section 1202 deals with the impeachment of a declarant whose hearsay statement is in evidence as distinguished from the impeachment of a witness who has testified. [6] The commission’s comment to section 1202 states in pertinent part: “Section 1235 provides that evidence of[*669] inconsistent statements made by a trial witness may be admitted to prove the truth of the matter stated. No similar exception to the hearsay rule is applicable to a hearsay declarant’s inconsistent statements that are admitted under Section 1202.”

Another indication that section 1235 is inapplicable here is found in section 145 of the Evidence Code. Again, section 1235 provides: “Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing . . . .” (Italics added.) Section 145 provides: “ ‘The hearing’ means the hearing at which a question under this code arises, and not some earlier or later hearing.” Morris not having testified at trial—the hearing at which the admissibility of his prior inconsistent statements arose—those statements were not inconsistent with his testimony “at the hearing.” (See People v. Rojas (1975) 15 Cal.3d 540, 548 [125 Cal.Rptr. 357, 542 P.2d 229].) Therefore, Smith’s testimony regarding Morris’ prior inconsistent statements was not admissible under section 1235. People v. Bynum (1971) 4 Cal.3d 589 [94 Cal.Rptr. 241, 483 P.2d 1193] [7] and People v. Browning (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 125 [119 Cal.Rptr. 420] [8] are overruled to the extent they conflict with the views expressed herein.

It is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error. (See Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243].) Used as substantive evidence, the erroneously admitted evidence amounted to a confession. During its deliberations, at its request, the jury heard the evidence again; soon thereafter the guilty verdict was returned. The only other evidence incriminating defendant was the store manager’s identification of him. However, the robbers having been masked, the identification was based solely on defendant’s stature and voice. Moreover, none of the other five witnesses viewing the lineup was able to identify defendant.

[*670] The judgment is reversed.

Wright, C. J., McComb, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., Sullivan, J., and Richardson, J., concurred.

1

Section 240, subdivision (a)(5), provides that a witness is “unavailable” when “[ajbsent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has exercised reasonable diligence but has been unable to procure his attendance by the court’s process.” Defendant contends that the People failed to exercise reasonable diligence to procure Morris’ attendance. We need not reach this question because, for the reasons stated below, Smith’s testimony, regarding Morris’ prior inconsistent statements was inadmissible on another ground.

2

Section 1291, subdivision (a)(2), provides that evidence of former testimony is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and “[t]he party against whom the former testimony is offered was a party to the action or proceeding in which the testimony was given and had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an interest and motive similar to that which he has at the hearing.”

3

Section 1235 provides: “Evidence of a statement made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with Section 770.”

Section 770 provides: “Unless the interests of justice otherwise require, extrinsic evidence of a statement made by a witness that is inconsistent with any part of his testimony at the hearing shall be excluded unless: [H] (a) The witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement; or [1] (b) The witness has not been excused from giving further testimony in the action.”

4

Defendant’s failure to object to Smith’s testimony on this ground is excusable. It is the general rule, of course, that questions relating to the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal absent a specific and timely objection at trial on the ground sought to be urged on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Cannady (1972) 8 Cal.3d 379, 387 [105 Cal.Rptr. 129, 503 P.2d 585]; People v. De Santiago (1969) 71 Cal.2d 18, 22 [76 Cal.Rptr. 809, 453 P.2d 353].) However, “we have excused a failure to object where to require defense counsel to raise an objection ‘would place an unreasonable burden on defendants to anticipate unforeseen changes in the law and encourage fruitless objections in other situations where defendants might hope that an established rule of evidence would be changed on appeal.’ ” (People v. De Santiago, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 23, quoting People v. Kitchens (1956) 46 Cal.2d 260, 263 [294 P.2d 17]; see People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 454 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1].)

In light of the fact that section 1235 was held applicable in like circumstances in People v. Bynum (1971) 4 Cal.3d 589 [94 Cal.Rptr. 241,483 P.2d 1193], we cannot fault defense counsel for failing to foresee that we would reach a contrary conclusion today. In Bynum, a prosecution witness who testified at the preliminary hearing was unavailable at trial because he had died in the interim. Prior extrajudicial statements made by the witness were then admitted for the limited purpose of determining his credibility, the trial court viewing it as immaterial whether they were prior inconsistent statements, prior consistent statements, or past recollection recorded. (Evid. Code, §§ 1235, 1236, 1237.) The issue we consider today was not articulated in Bynum, the case turning instead on the confrontation clause issue, but this court did hold section 1235 applicable in the circumstances of that case. (4 Cal.3d at p. 603.)

5

For the text of section 770, see footnote'3, ante.

6

Section 1202 provides: “Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inconsistent statement or other conduct. Any other evidence offered to attack or support the credibility of the declarant is admissible if it would have been admissible had the declarant been a witness at the hearing. For the purposes of this section, the deponent of a deposition taken in the action in which it is offered shall be deemed to be a hearsay declarant.”

7

See footnote 4, ante.

8

In Browning, as in this cae, the preliminary hearing testimony of a person who was unavailable as a witness at trial was read into the trial record; evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by that person was then admitted for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Like Bynum, Browning focused on the confrontation clause issue to the neglect of the hearsay issue. However, in holding that evidence of the prior inconsistent statement was properly admitted, Browning did rely on section 1235.