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 2014–2023 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. Tafoyagreen2 sentences2023(People 45 v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 175 [(Tafoya)]; [People v.] Spence [(2012)] 212 Cal.App.4th [478,] 517 [(Spence)].) On appeal, we apply the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial court’s exercise of its authority under Evidence Code section 765. 2022(People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 175 [(Tafoya)]; [People v.] Spence [(2012)] 212 Cal.App.4th [478,] 517 [(Spence)].) On appeal, we apply the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial court’s exercise of its authority under Evidence Code section 765. | 4 | 5 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023The trial court, however, has wide latitude to restrict such cross-examination, and such testimony is properly barred unless the defendant can show the prohibited cross-examination would have produced a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility.’ (People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 560 ; see People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 513 .)” (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 866 .) “The trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to exercise control over interrogation of witnesses and protect them from undue harassment or embarrassment. 2022The trial court, however, has wide latitude to restrict such cross-examination, and such testimony is properly barred unless the defendant can show the prohibited cross-examination would have produced a significantly 35 different impression of the witness’s credibility.’ (People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 560 ; see People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 513 .)” (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 866 .) “The trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to exercise control over interrogation of witnesses and protect them from undue harassment or embarrassment. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Capistranored2 sentences2023The trial court, however, has wide latitude to restrict such cross-examination, and such testimony is properly barred unless the defendant can show the prohibited cross-examination would have produced a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility.’ (People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 560 ; see People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 513 .)” (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 866 .) “The trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to exercise control over interrogation of witnesses and protect them from undue harassment or embarrassment. 2022The trial court, however, has wide latitude to restrict such cross-examination, and such testimony is properly barred unless the defendant can show the prohibited cross-examination would have produced a significantly 35 different impression of the witness’s credibility.’ (People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 560 ; see People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 513 .)” (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 866 .) “The trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to exercise control over interrogation of witnesses and protect them from undue harassment or embarrassment. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tohomgreen2 sentences2014(Cf. Tohom, supra, 969 N.Y.S.2d at p. 133 [rejecting argument that trial court was required to make a finding of necessity (i.e., child witness needed the support dog to be able to testify) before allowing the presence of the support dog]; State v. Devon D., supra, 90 A.3d at pp. 399, 405 [contra].) *1517 Instead of requiring a case-specific finding that an individual witness needs the presence of a support dog, we conclude that in exercising its discretion under Evidence Code section 765, a trial court should consider the particular facts of the case and the circumstances of each individual w 2014(Cf. Tohom, supra, 109 A.D.3d at p. 266, 969 N.Y.S.2d at p. 133 [rejecting argument that trial court was required 17 to make a finding of necessity (i.e., child witness needed the support dog to be able to testify) before allowing the presence of the support dog]; State v. Devon D., supra, ___ A.D.3d at p. ___, 150 Conn.App. at pp. 538, 549 [contra].) Instead of requiring a case-specific finding that an individual witness needs the presence of a support dog, we conclude that in exercising its discretion under Evidence Code section 765, a trial court should consider the particular facts of the | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dyegreen2 sentences2014(Cf. Spence, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 518 ; Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 443-444; State v. Dye, supra, 309 P.3d at p. 1199 .) Furthermore, to the extent that alternative standard requires the prosecution to prove a specific witness will be unable to testify unless a support dog is present, we disagree with that interpretation of the terms “need" and “necessity” as applied in the context of the trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to allow the presence of a support dog during an individual witness’s testimony. 2014(Cf. Spence, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 518 ; Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 443-444; State v. Dye, supra, 309 P.3d at p. 1199 , 178 Wash.2d at pp. 553-554.) Furthermore, to the extent that alternative standard requires the prosecution to prove a specific witness will be unable to testify unless a support dog is present, we disagree with that interpretation of the terms "need" and "necessity" as applied in the context of the trial court's exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to allow the presence of a support dog during an individual witness's testimony. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Spencegreen2 sentences2014(Cf. Spence, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 518 ; Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 443-444; State v. Dye, supra, 309 P.3d at p. 1199 .) Furthermore, to the extent that alternative standard requires the prosecution to prove a specific witness will be unable to testify unless a support dog is present, we disagree with that interpretation of the terms “need" and “necessity” as applied in the context of the trial court’s exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to allow the presence of a support dog during an individual witness’s testimony. 2014(Cf. Spence, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at p. 518 ; Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 443-444; State v. Dye, supra, 309 P.3d at p. 1199 , 178 Wash.2d at pp. 553-554.) Furthermore, to the extent that alternative standard requires the prosecution to prove a specific witness will be unable to testify unless a support dog is present, we disagree with that interpretation of the terms "need" and "necessity" as applied in the context of the trial court's exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to allow the presence of a support dog during an individual witness's testimony. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Coxred2 sentences2014Code, § 765; [citations].)” (People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 700 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 ].) The trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to exercise control over interrogation of witnesses and protect them from undue harassment or embarrassment. 2014Code, § 765; [citations].)” (People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 700 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 ].) The trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to exercise control over interrogation of witnesses and protect them from undue harassment or embarrassment. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Brady
green
2 sentences2023The trial court, however, has wide latitude to restrict such cross-examination, and such testimony is properly barred unless the defendant can show the prohibited cross-examination would have produced a significantly different impression of the witness’s credibility.’ (People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 560 ; see People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 513 .)” (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 866 .) “The trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to exercise control over interrogation of witnesses and protect them from undue harassment or embarrassment. 2022The trial court, however, has wide latitude to restrict such cross-examination, and such testimony is properly barred unless the defendant can show the prohibited cross-examination would have produced a significantly 35 different impression of the witness’s credibility.’ (People v. Brady (2010) 50 Cal.4th 547, 560 ; see People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 513 .)” (People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 866 .) “The trial court has broad discretion under Evidence Code section 765 to exercise control over interrogation of witnesses and protect them from undue harassment or embarrassment. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
People v. Livingston
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Myles, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1214 ; People v. Ybarra, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1077 ; People v. Johns, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 553-556; People v. Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 435-444 (Adams); People v. Patten, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1725-1733.) D Chenault also asserts the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 765 by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of F. and C. without individualized showings of necessity. 2014(People v. Myles, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1214 ; People v. Ybarra, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1077 ; Johns, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 553-556; Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 435-444; Patten, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1725-1733.) D Chenault also asserts the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 765 by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of F. and C. without individualized showings of necessity. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Ybarra
red
2 sentences2014(People v. Myles, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1214 ; People v. Ybarra, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1077 ; People v. Johns, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 553-556; People v. Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 435-444 (Adams); People v. Patten, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1725-1733.) D Chenault also asserts the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 765 by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of F. and C. without individualized showings of necessity. 2014(People v. Myles, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1214 ; People v. Ybarra, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1077 ; Johns, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 553-556; Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at pp. 435-444; Patten, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1725-1733.) D Chenault also asserts the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 765 by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of F. and C. without individualized showings of necessity. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Adams
red
2 sentences2014Citing Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th 412 , he argues his federal constitutional right to due process required findings by the trial court that F. and C. each needed the presence of a support dog before the court could allow its presence. 2014Citing Adams, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th 412 , he argues his federal constitutional right to due process required findings by the trial court that F. and C. each needed the presence of a support dog before the court could allow its presence. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
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.