Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
36 California opinions name it 4 courts 1921–2026 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2026(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1160 [“When applying the accusatory pleading test, ‘[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading’ ”], overruled on other grounds in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, fn. 3 ; People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 [application of the accusatory pleading test “does not require or depend on an examination of the evidence adduced at trial”]; People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1036 [“Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction o 2024(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160 . . . [‘When applying the accusatory pleading test, “[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading” ’], overruled in part in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036 . . . [‘Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense’].) ¶ Indeed, in cases such | 10 | 19 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2026(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1160 [“When applying the accusatory pleading test, ‘[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading’ ”], overruled on other grounds in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, fn. 3 ; People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 [application of the accusatory pleading test “does not require or depend on an examination of the evidence adduced at trial”]; People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1036 [“Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction o 2024(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160 . . . [‘When applying the accusatory pleading test, “[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading” ’], overruled in part in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036 . . . [‘Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense’].) ¶ Indeed, in cases such | 9 | 13 |
People v. Banksgreen2 sentences2026(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1160 [“When applying the accusatory pleading test, ‘[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading’ ”], overruled on other grounds in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, fn. 3 ; People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 [application of the accusatory pleading test “does not require or depend on an examination of the evidence adduced at trial”]; People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1036 [“Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction o 2024(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160 . . . [‘When applying the accusatory pleading test, “[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading” ’], overruled in part in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036 . . . [‘Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense’].) ¶ Indeed, in cases such | 7 | 11 |
People v. Scottgreen2 sentences2026(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1160 [“When applying the accusatory pleading test, ‘[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading’ ”], overruled on other grounds in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, fn. 3 ; People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 [application of the accusatory pleading test “does not require or depend on an examination of the evidence adduced at trial”]; People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1036 [“Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction o 2024(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160 . . . [‘When applying the accusatory pleading test, “[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading” ’], overruled in part in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036 . . . [‘Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense’].) ¶ Indeed, in cases such | 6 | 10 |
People v. Chaneygreen2 sentences2021(See People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 (Smith) [“The trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading.”]; People v. Chaney (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 253, 257 [“ ‘to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense’ ”]; see also People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1160 [“When applying the accusatory pleading test, ‘[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, fn. 3 .) We continue to follow Alv 2019“Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense.” (Montoya, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1036 ; see also People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 [court “need only examine the accusatory pleading”]; People v. Chaney (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 253, 257 [“‘to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the 21 pleading for the greater offense’”].) Appellant’s reliance on People v. | 4 | 5 |
People v. Maciasgreen2 sentences2021(See Alvarez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 [Fourth District, Division One]; People v. Munoz (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 143, 158 (Munoz) [Second District, Division One]; People v. Macias (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 957, 964-965 (Macias) [First District, Division One].) Specifically, the Ortega court’s admonition to “consider” “[t]he evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing” (Ortega, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 967 ) conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 7 pronouncement in People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 to “consider only the pleading” when “determin[ing] whether a defendant is entitled to ins 2019"Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test-to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense-we consider only the pleading for the greater offense." ( People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 ( Montoya ).) Accordingly, unlawful taking of a vehicle was not a lesser included offense of carjacking in Montoya because the charging document did not include the "requisite allegations" for unlawful taking. ( Ibid . ) In subsequent cases the Supreme Court has reiterated that "[t]he trial court n | 3 | 5 |
People v. Shockleygreen2 sentences2019(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ( Banks ) ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading' "], overruled in part by People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363 , 391, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 ( Montoya ) ["Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test-to determine wh 2019(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ( Banks ) ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading' "], overruled in part by People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363 , 391, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 ( Montoya ) ["Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test-to determine wh | 3 | 3 |
People v. Munozgreen2 sentences2021(See Alvarez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 [Fourth District, Division One]; People v. Munoz (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 143, 158 (Munoz) [Second District, Division One]; People v. Macias (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 957, 964-965 (Macias) [First District, Division One].) Specifically, the Ortega court’s admonition to “consider” “[t]he evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing” (Ortega, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 967 ) conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 7 pronouncement in People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 to “consider only the pleading” when “determin[ing] whether a defendant is entitled to ins 2021ACCUSATORY PLEADING TEST “Under the accusatory pleading test, if the facts actually alleged in the accusatory pleading include all of the elements of the lesser offense, the latter is necessarily included in the former.” (People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1227-1228 .) Our Supreme Court has explained, “Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense.” (People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1036 , fn. omitted.) Nevertheless, | 2 | 5 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2019(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ( Banks ) ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading' "], overruled in part by People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363 , 391, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 ( Montoya ) ["Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test-to determine wh 2019(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ( Banks ) ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading' "], overruled in part by People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363 , 391, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 ( Montoya ) ["Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test-to determine wh | 2 | 3 |
People v. Ortegagreen2 sentences2019(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ( Banks ) ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading' "], overruled in part by People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363 , 391, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 ( Montoya ) ["Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test-to determine wh 2019(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ( Banks ) ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading' "], overruled in part by People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363 , 391, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 ( Montoya ) ["Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test-to determine wh | 2 | 2 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2018(See People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ["The trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading."]; People v. Chaney (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 253 , 257, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 714 [" 'to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense-we consider only the pleading for the greater offense' "]; see also People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading.' "], disapproved on another g 2018(See People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 244 [“The trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading.”]; People v. Chaney (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 253, 257 [“ ‘to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense’ ”]; see also People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1160 [“When applying the accusatory pleading test, ‘[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391, fn. 3 .) Defendant’s reliance on People v. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Rushgreen2 sentences2021The criminal protective order likewise indicates that Cantor’s birthday is July 1982. 11 with the Supreme Court’s statement in Montoya to “consider only the pleading” when “determin[ing] whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense.” (Montoya, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1036 .) As we explained in Alvarez, “Montoya disapproved of People v. Rush (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 20 , which”—like Ortega—“considered evidence from the preliminary hearing in applying the accusatory pleading test.” (Alvarez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 .) But “Ortega did not cite Montoya or attem 2019(See, e.g., People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ( Banks ) ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading' "], overruled in part by People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363 , 391, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 328 , 349 P.3d 1028 ; accord, People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ; see also People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 , 1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 ( Montoya ) ["Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test-to determine wh | 1 | 6 |
People v. Miceligreen2 sentences2016Jury Instruction on Self-Defense “A defendant is entitled to instruction on request on any defense for which substantial evidence exists. [Citations.] However, the trial court need give a requested instruction concerning a defense only if there is substantial evidence to support the defense.” (People v. Miceli (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 256, 267 .) Substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745 .) If the evidence is minimal and insubstan 2016“A defendant is entitled to instruction on request on any defense for which substantial evidence exists. [Citations.] However, the trial court need give a requested instruction concerning a defense only if there is substantial evidence to support the defense.” (People v. Miceli (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 256, 267 .) Substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745 .) If the evidence is minimal and insubstantial, the trial court need not in | 1 | 5 |
People v. Alvarezgreen2 sentences2021The criminal protective order likewise indicates that Cantor’s birthday is July 1982. 11 with the Supreme Court’s statement in Montoya to “consider only the pleading” when “determin[ing] whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense.” (Montoya, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1036 .) As we explained in Alvarez, “Montoya disapproved of People v. Rush (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 20 , which”—like Ortega—“considered evidence from the preliminary hearing in applying the accusatory pleading test.” (Alvarez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 .) But “Ortega did not cite Montoya or attem 2021(See Alvarez, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 788 [Fourth District, Division One]; People v. Munoz (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 143, 158 (Munoz) [Second District, Division One]; People v. Macias (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 957, 964-965 (Macias) [First District, Division One].) Specifically, the Ortega court’s admonition to “consider” “[t]he evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing” (Ortega, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th at p. 967 ) conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 7 pronouncement in People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031 to “consider only the pleading” when “determin[ing] whether a defendant is entitled to ins | 1 | 3 |
People v. Christian S.green2 sentences2016(People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684 & fn. 12 [it is not the case that “jury instructions must be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak”], overruled on another ground in In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 777 .) “The trial court is not required to present theories the jury could not reasonably find to exist.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) We review the trial court’s determination de novo and independently decide whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the requested instruction. 2016(People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684 & fn. 12 [it is not the case that “jury instructions must be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak”], overruled on another ground in In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 777 .) “The trial court is not required to present theories the jury could not reasonably find to exist.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) We review the trial court’s determination de novo and independently decide whether there 5 The trial court granted Tepelikyan’s motion at the end of the prosecution’s evidence in the second trial to | 1 | 3 |
People v. Flannelred2 sentences2016(People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684 & fn. 12 [it is not the case that “jury instructions must be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak”], overruled on another ground in In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 777 .) “The trial court is not required to present theories the jury could not reasonably find to exist.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) We review the trial court’s determination de novo and independently decide whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the requested instruction. 2016(People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684 & fn. 12 [it is not the case that “jury instructions must be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak”], overruled on another ground in In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 777 .) “The trial court is not required to present theories the jury could not reasonably find to exist.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) We review the trial court’s determination de novo and independently decide whether there 5 The trial court granted Tepelikyan’s motion at the end of the prosecution’s evidence in the second trial to | 1 | 3 |
People v. Pettingillgreen2 sentences1978It simply seeks to deter the police from lying to the magistrate surely an obvious prohibition which all can understand and obey. [11] A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holds under the Fourth Amendment, as we do under the California Constitution and statutes, that a defendant is entitled to challenge the veracity of a search warrant affidavit and prove it contains statements that were either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. ( Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [ 57 L.Ed.2d 667 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 ].) But in two significant respects the decisio 1978It simply seeks to deter the police from lying to the magistrate surely an obvious prohibition which all can understand and obey. [11] A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holds under the Fourth Amendment, as we do under the California Constitution and statutes, that a defendant is entitled to challenge the veracity of a search warrant affidavit and prove it contains statements that were either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. ( Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [ 57 L.Ed.2d 667 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 ].) But in two significant respects the decisio | 1 | 2 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2018(See People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ["The trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading."]; People v. Chaney (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 253 , 257, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 714 [" 'to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense-we consider only the pleading for the greater offense' "]; see also People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading.' "], disapproved on another g 2018(See People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232 , 244, 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 57 , 303 P.3d 368 ["The trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading."]; People v. Chaney (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 253 , 257, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 714 [" 'to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense-we consider only the pleading for the greater offense' "]; see also People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113 , 1160, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 185 , 331 P.3d 1206 ["When applying the accusatory pleading test, '[t]he trial court need only examine the accusatory pleading.' "], disapproved on another g | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lohbauergreen2 sentences2018There, multiple defendants were charged with forcible rape in violation of former section 261, subdivision 3, but the trial court found them guilty of rape in violation of former section 261, subdivision 1, prohibiting sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18. ( Collins , at p. 58, 4 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 351 P.2d 326 .) Defendant focuses on the Supreme Court's finding, in affirming the convictions, that the defendants' due process rights were not violated because they had notice, via the preliminary *589 hearing, of the victim's age. ( Id . at p. 60, 4 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 351 P.2d 326 .) Ho 2018There, multiple defendants were charged with forcible rape in violation of former section 261, subdivision 3, but the trial court found them guilty of rape in violation of former section 261, subdivision 1, prohibiting sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18. ( Collins , at p. 58, 4 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 351 P.2d 326 .) Defendant focuses on the Supreme Court's finding, in affirming the convictions, that the defendants' due process rights were not violated because they had notice, via the preliminary *589 hearing, of the victim's age. ( Id . at p. 60, 4 Cal.Rptr. 158 , 351 P.2d 326 .) Ho | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hernandezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Brevermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Theodor v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ortega
green
2 sentences2025We rejected such a test in Alvarez, concluding the test—articulated in People v. Ortega (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 956 , 967—conflicts with Supreme Court precedent holding courts may only consider the pleading when applying the accusatory pleading test to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense. 2021ACCUSATORY PLEADING TEST “Under the accusatory pleading test, if the facts actually alleged in the accusatory pleading include all of the elements of the lesser offense, the latter is necessarily included in the former.” (People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1227-1228 .) Our Supreme Court has explained, “Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense.” (People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1036 , fn. omitted.) Nevertheless, | 6 | 2018–2025 |
People v. Reed
green
2 sentences2023The Accusatory Pleading Test “Under the accusatory pleading test, a lesser offense is included within a greater ‘ “ ‘if the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading include language describing the offense in such a way that if committed as specified the lesser offense is necessarily committed.’ ” ’ ” (In re Fernando C. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 499, 503 .) “ ‘[T]he required notice is given when the specific language of the accusatory pleading adequately warns the defendant that the People will seek to prove the elements of the lesser offense.’ ” (People v. Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 122 2021ACCUSATORY PLEADING TEST “Under the accusatory pleading test, if the facts actually alleged in the accusatory pleading include all of the elements of the lesser offense, the latter is necessarily included in the former.” (People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 1227-1228 .) Our Supreme Court has explained, “Consistent with the primary function of the accusatory pleading test—to determine whether a defendant is entitled to instruction on a lesser uncharged offense—we consider only the pleading for the greater offense.” (People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1036 , fn. omitted.) Nevertheless, | 4 | 2019–2023 |
People v. Souza
green
2 sentences2026(People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 113 .) 22 2. 2020(People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 113 .) B. | 2 | 2020–2026 |
People v. Blair
green
2 sentences2016Jury Instruction on Self-Defense “A defendant is entitled to instruction on request on any defense for which substantial evidence exists. [Citations.] However, the trial court need give a requested instruction concerning a defense only if there is substantial evidence to support the defense.” (People v. Miceli (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 256, 267 .) Substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745 .) If the evidence is minimal and insubstan 2016“A defendant is entitled to instruction on request on any defense for which substantial evidence exists. [Citations.] However, the trial court need give a requested instruction concerning a defense only if there is substantial evidence to support the defense.” (People v. Miceli (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 256, 267 .) Substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745 .) If the evidence is minimal and insubstantial, the trial court need not in | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Oropeza
green
2 sentences2016(People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684 & fn. 12 [it is not the case that “jury instructions must be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak”], overruled on another ground in In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 777 .) “The trial court is not required to present theories the jury could not reasonably find to exist.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) We review the trial court’s determination de novo and independently decide whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the requested instruction. 2016(People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684 & fn. 12 [it is not the case that “jury instructions must be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak”], overruled on another ground in In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 777 .) “The trial court is not required to present theories the jury could not reasonably find to exist.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) We review the trial court’s determination de novo and independently decide whether there 5 The trial court granted Tepelikyan’s motion at the end of the prosecution’s evidence in the second trial to | 2 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Salvucci
green
2 sentences1986Justice Rehnquist noted, “For we are. not at all sure that the determination of a motion to suppress is materially aided by labeling the inquiry identified in Jones as one of standing, rather than simply recognizing it as one involving the substantive question of whether or not the proponent of the motion to suppress has had his own Fourth Amendment rights infringed by the search and seizure which he seeks to challenge.” (Id., at p. 133, italics added.) One year later, in United States v. Salvucci (1980) 448 U.S. 83 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 619 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 ], Justice Rehnquist, again writing for the 1986Justice Rehnquist noted, “For we are. not at all sure that the determination of a motion to suppress is materially aided by labeling the inquiry identified in Jones as one of standing, rather than simply recognizing it as one involving the substantive question of whether or not the proponent of the motion to suppress has had his own Fourth Amendment rights infringed by the search and seizure which he seeks to challenge.” (Id., at p. 133, italics added.) One year later, in United States v. Salvucci (1980) 448 U.S. 83 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 619 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 ], Justice Rehnquist, again writing for the | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences1985(Id., at pp. 171-172 [ 57 L.Ed.2d at p. 682 ].) *442 In People v. Cook, supra, 22 Cal.3d 67 , our California Supreme Court recognized the restrictive interpretation of the Fourth Amendment made in Franks v. Delaware, supra, 438 U.S. 154 : “A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holds under the Fourth Amendment, as we do under the California Constitution and statutes, that a defendant is entitled to challenge the veracity of a search warrant affidavit and prove it contains statements that were either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. [Citation.] But in 1985(Id., at pp. 171-172 [ 57 L.Ed.2d at p. 682 ].) *442 In People v. Cook, supra, 22 Cal.3d 67 , our California Supreme Court recognized the restrictive interpretation of the Fourth Amendment made in Franks v. Delaware, supra, 438 U.S. 154 : “A recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holds under the Fourth Amendment, as we do under the California Constitution and statutes, that a defendant is entitled to challenge the veracity of a search warrant affidavit and prove it contains statements that were either knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. [Citation.] But in | 2 | 1978–1985 |
People v. Rodriguez
red
1 sentence2024(Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 262 .) Here, defendant requested a bench trial on his prior convictions and the two alleged aggravating factors, including the allegation the victims were particularly vulnerable. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. McCullough
green
1 sentence2024(People v. McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 596 .) Once that aggravating factor is found true, a defendant is entitled to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support that finding by timely appealing it. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Fernando C.
green
1 sentence2023The Accusatory Pleading Test “Under the accusatory pleading test, a lesser offense is included within a greater ‘ “ ‘if the charging allegations of the accusatory pleading include language describing the offense in such a way that if committed as specified the lesser offense is necessarily committed.’ ” ’ ” (In re Fernando C. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 499, 503 .) “ ‘[T]he required notice is given when the specific language of the accusatory pleading adequately warns the defendant that the People will seek to prove the elements of the lesser offense.’ ” (People v. Reed, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 122 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. SHELMIRE green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Verlinde
green
1 sentence2014It excuses criminal conduct if it is justified by a need to avoid an imminent peril and there is no time to resort to the legal authorities or such resort would be futile.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Verlinde (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1164 .) The defense of necessity cannot be invoked “when it is the culpable conduct of the actor that creates or contributes to the atmosphere of necessity.” (Id. at p. 1165.) “To justify an instruction on the defense of necessity, there must be evidence sufficient to establish that defendant violated the law (1) to prevent a significant evil, (2) with no adequat | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Pepper green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Bolden green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Earp green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Sullivan green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Crabb green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Hay v. McDonald neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.