arguments defense in California

2022(Mani Brothers, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397 .) To the extent Save Lafayette’s arguments challenge the adequacy of the EIR as an informational document, however, we will apply the standard of review described in Fresno. 24 D.

2022(Mani Brothers, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397 .) To the extent Save Lafayette’s arguments challenge the adequacy of the EIR as an informational document, however, we will apply the standard of review described in Fresno. 24 D.

2020(People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 979 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 .) “Arguments by the prosecutor that otherwise might be deemed improper do not constitute misconduct if they fall within the proper limits of rebuttal to the arguments of defense counsel.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1026 .) We find no error in the prosecutor’s statements.

2014(People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1155 , disapproved on a different point by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390 , 421 & fn. 22.) In determining whether a prosecutor’s comments to the jury constituted misconduct, “‘“the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.”’” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 284 .) “In conducting this inquiry, we ‘do not lightly infer’ that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.” (

2025A conservatorship under section 1011 “contemplates, not the liquidation of the company involved, but a conservation of the assets and business of the company over the period of stress by the commissioner who thereafter yields the control and direction to the regular officers of the company.” (Caminetti v. Superior Court (1941) 16 Cal.2d 838, 843 .) Section 1012 sets out the terms for ending a conservatorship under section 1011.

2023(Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 .) Defendant takes issue with the arguments defense counsel chose to advance in the sentencing statement and argues there was no tactical reason for defense counsel’s failure to request the trial court exercise its new discretion under amended section 654.

2023“On direct appeal, a conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance only if (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 .) “A fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counse

2021(Id. at p. 502.) The Court disagreed: “Though the crime of robbery continues ‘as long as the loot is being carried away to a place of temporary safety,’ ‘for purposes of establishing guilt, the asportation requirement is initially satisfied by evidence of slight movement.’ (People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158, 1165 .) Therefore, defendant did not need to flee the scene of his crimes to be guilty of robbery, and his flight is evidence of his consciousness of that guilt.” (Id. at p. 502.)6 Moreover, defendant’s conduct in fleeing the scene of the robbery certainly supported the inference that

2020The prosecutor “is given wide latitude . . . to vigorously argue its case.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 647 .) “ ‘[W]hen the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 960 ; see also People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 772 [It is “ ‘ “not lightly infer[red]” that the jury drew the most damaging rather 26 than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s sta

2020The prosecutor “is given wide latitude . . . to vigorously argue its case.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 647 .) “ ‘[W]hen the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.’ ” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 960 ; see also People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 772 [It is “ ‘ “not lightly infer[red]” that the jury drew the most damaging rather 26 than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s sta

2015(People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 336-337 ; see People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 957 [prosecutors are allowed a wide range of descriptive comment and their argument may be vigorous as long as it amounts to fair comment on the evidence].) The prosecutor “has broad discretion to state its views regarding which reasonable inferences may or may not be drawn from the evidence.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1026 .) “Arguments by the prosecutor that otherwise might be deemed improper do not constitute misconduct if they fall within the proper limits of rebuttal to the

2015It has been recognized that such testimony, “although worthless as a matter of law, can be 1 The probation report, prepared after trial, stated: “The defendant has no prior adult or juvenile history.” 9 ‘dynamite’ to the jury because of the special regard the jury has for the prosecutor, thereby effectively circumventing the rules of evidence.”’” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 828 ; People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1026 .) 2 For example, in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208 (Bolton), defense counsel had been allowed to impeach the victim with the victim’s prior felonie

2015It has been recognized that such testimony, “although worthless as a matter of law, can be 1 The probation report, prepared after trial, stated: “The defendant has no prior adult or juvenile history.” 9 ‘dynamite’ to the jury because of the special regard the jury has for the prosecutor, thereby effectively circumventing the rules of evidence.”’” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 828 ; People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1026 .) 2 For example, in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208 (Bolton), defense counsel had been allowed to impeach the victim with the victim’s prior felonie

2014(People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567 .) But “a prosecutor may not go beyond the evidence in his argument to the jury,” for example, by suggesting “the existence of ‘facts’ outside the record.” (People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 794-795 .) During rebuttal, a prosecutor’s arguments “that otherwise might be deemed improper do not constitute misconduct if they fall within the proper limits of rebuttal to the arguments of defense counsel.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1026 .) For example, a prosecutor may comment on whether defense counsel’s closing argument is persuasi

2014(People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1155 , disapproved on a different point by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390 , 421 & fn. 22.) In determining whether a prosecutor’s comments to the jury constituted misconduct, “‘“the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.”’” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 284 .) “In conducting this inquiry, we ‘do not lightly infer’ that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.” (

2014Clayworth III explained that the denial of a request to remove a judge is not an appealable order and may be challenged only by writ of mandate (§ 170.3, subd. (d); 8 People v. Hull (1991) 1 Cal.4th 266, 276 ), and the court rejected the pharmacies’ arguments that an exception should be made in that appeal.

2014(People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 567 .) But “a prosecutor may not go beyond the evidence in his argument to the jury,” for example, by suggesting “the existence of ‘facts’ outside the record.” (People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 794-795 .) During rebuttal, a prosecutor’s arguments “that otherwise might be deemed improper do not constitute misconduct if they fall within the proper limits of rebuttal to the arguments of defense counsel.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1026 .) For example, a prosecutor may comment on whether defense counsel’s closing argument is persuasi

2014(People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1155 , disapproved on a different point by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390 , 421 & fn. 22.) In determining whether a prosecutor’s comments to the jury constituted misconduct, “‘“the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.”’” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 284 .) “In conducting this inquiry, we ‘do not lightly infer’ that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.” (

2014(People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1155 , disapproved on a different point by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390 , 421 & fn. 22.) In determining whether a prosecutor’s comments to the jury constituted misconduct, “‘“the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.”’” (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 284 .) “In conducting this inquiry, we ‘do not lightly infer’ that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.” (

2013“A prosecutor commits misconduct by referring in argument to matters outside the record. [Citation.]” (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1026 .) But “the prosecution has broad discretion to state its views regarding which reasonable inferences may or may not be drawn from the evidence,” and “[a]rguments by the prosecutor that otherwise might be deemed improper do not constitute misconduct if they fall within the proper limits of rebuttal to the arguments of defense counsel. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) In addition, “An attorney may choose not to object for many reasons, and the failure to

2013If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.’ [Citation.] [¶] It is the duty of appellants’ counsel, not of the courts, ‘by argument and the citation of authorities to show that the claimed error exists.’ [Citation.]” (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050 .) We decline to address the above contentions because appellant has not cited to the record or to any relevant legal authority in support of them, and has not provided the arguments or analysis necessary for us to conduct an adequate review.1 DISPOSITION

2013(Corona, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1226 .) The $120,000 sanction is less than the $280,000 in attorney's fees Debbara incurred, and Joseph has never contested his ability to pay this award. 6 Joseph's challenge to sanctions under section 271 is based on the same arguments as his challenge to the section 2017 award.

2013Although appointment of experts may be required when a defendant shows that they are necessary to formulate an affirmative defense to criminal charges or to rebut an expert witness retained by the prosecution to render an expert opinion at sentencing, a defendant may not require the trial court to appoint experts at public expense merely to supplement the arguments of counsel at sentencing.” Because defense counsel never formally sought approval for Blak’s expert services, we cannot determine whether Stuckey applies. 11. granted trial courts on matters of continuances; only an unreasoning and