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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2024 2 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. Aledamatgreen2 sentences2021(Ibid. [“counsel never argued that, if he did assault the victim with the box cutter, the box cutter was not a deadly weapon”].) In addition, the Aledamat court reasoned it would have been impossible for the jury not to find the weapon in that case (a box cutter) was capable of causing and likely to cause death or bodily injury based on other facts the jury necessarily found, i.e., that “(1) defendant did an act with a deadly weapon (either inherently or as used) that by its nature would directly and probably result in the application of force; (2) defendant was aware of facts that would lead 2021Neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel during closing argument in this case “suggested to the jury that there were two separate ways it 9 could decide whether the [knife] was a deadly weapon” (Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at 14 ); to the contrary, both sides focused on the manner in which defendant used the knife and defense counsel never argued defendant should be acquitted because the knife was not a deadly weapon. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Montesgreen1 sentence2014Rather, the jury could reasonably infer, based on past Carlsbad gang violent incidents not involving knives, that the "hit up" in this case posed a danger to human life, whether by a beating or otherwise, such that murder was a natural and probable consequence of the target offenses. "[P]rior knowledge that a fellow gang member is armed is not necessary to support a defendant's murder conviction as an aider and abettor." (Medina, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 921 ; see also People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1056 [defendant need not know of perpetrator's intended use of weapon, but only in | 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. Walker
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024 , 1028 (Walker).) As noted, the jury found true the sentence enhancement allegation that Ramos personally used a knife in violation of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. HAYKEL
green
1 sentence2015The court’s obligation was to impose either the low, middle, or upper term on the conviction for attempted murder. (§ 1170.1, subd. (a).) Then, the court was required to either impose a consecutive one-year 19 term for the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement attached to that offense (§ 1170.1, subd. (d)), dismiss the enhancement, or strike the one-year term pursuant to section 1385.3 (See People v. Haykel (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 146, 151 .) Only after calculating the determinate term in this matter does the court then order the determinate term to be served concurrently or consecutivel | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Montano
yellow
1 sentence2014Rather, the jury could reasonably infer, based on past Carlsbad gang violent incidents not involving knives, that the "hit up" in this case posed a danger to human life, whether by a beating or otherwise, such that murder was a natural and probable consequence of the target offenses. "[P]rior knowledge that a fellow gang member is armed is not necessary to support a defendant's murder conviction as an aider and abettor." (Medina, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 921 ; see also People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1056 [defendant need not know of perpetrator's intended use of weapon, but only in | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Medina
red
1 sentence2014Rather, the jury could reasonably infer, based on past Carlsbad gang violent incidents not involving knives, that the "hit up" in this case posed a danger to human life, whether by a beating or otherwise, such that murder was a natural and probable consequence of the target offenses. "[P]rior knowledge that a fellow gang member is armed is not necessary to support a defendant's murder conviction as an aider and abettor." (Medina, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 921 ; see also People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1056 [defendant need not know of perpetrator's intended use of weapon, but only in | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Wells
green
2 sentences2013In Wells II, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 468 , the defendant was found in possession of a knife in violation of section 4502, subdivision (a) and claimed he possessed the knife for purposes of self-defense. 2013In Wells II, supra, 261 Cal.App.2d 468 , the defendant was found in possession of a knife in violation of section 4502, subdivision (a) and claimed he possessed the knife for purposes of self-defense. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.