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.
26 California opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 19 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. Lopezgreen2 sentences2026(See Eddy, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 482; see also In re Smith (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 377 , 390 [no McCoy error when defendant objected to concession of guilt during closing argument because “it cannot be said that at the time counsel made the concession, it was over petitioner’s intransigent and unambiguous objection”]; People v. Lopez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 55, 66 [“we have found no authority . . . allowing extension of McCoy’s holding to a situation where the defendant does not expressly disagree with a decision relating to his right to control the objective of his defense”].) Instead, Petr 2023Presented with express statements of the client’s will to maintain innocence, however, counsel may not steer the ship the other way.” ( McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. _ [ 138 S.Ct. at p. 1509 ].) A McCoy violation thus requires the record shows “(1) that defendant’s plain objective is to maintain his innocence and pursue an acquittal, and (2) that trial counsel disregards that objective and overrides his client by conceding guilt.” (People v. Eddy (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 472, 482 .) “California courts following McCoy repeatedly have held that [the] case applies only where defendant actively opposes coun | 5 | 8 |
People v. Franksgreen2 sentences2026(See McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. 424 [explaining that “[i]f a client declines to participate in his defense, then an attorney may permissibly guide the defense pursuant to the strategy she believes to be in the defendant’s best interest”]; People v. Franks (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 883, 891 [no McCoy error when counsel’s concession occurred after defendant refused to speak to counsel, rejected counsel’s correspondence, and declined to attend trial].) On the record that Petrakis has delimited, there is no evidence that trial counsel knew when she conceded Petrakis’s guilt for the lesser included m 2023Presented with express statements of the client’s will to maintain innocence, however, counsel may not steer the ship the other way.” ( McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. _ [ 138 S.Ct. at p. 1509 ].) A McCoy violation thus requires the record shows “(1) that defendant’s plain objective is to maintain his innocence and pursue an acquittal, and (2) that trial counsel disregards that objective and overrides his client by conceding guilt.” (People v. Eddy (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 472, 482 .) “California courts following McCoy repeatedly have held that [the] case applies only where defendant actively opposes coun | 5 | 7 |
People v. Floresgreen2 sentences2026(Id. at p. 426.) Rather, to demonstrate error under McCoy, the defendant must show defense counsel conceded the defendant’s guilt and the concession was over the defendant’s “intransigent and unambiguous objection.” (Id. at p. 420; see People v. Chhuon (June 1, 2026, S105403) __ Cal.5th __ [ 2026 WL 1530451 , *12-14 [McCoy violation where counsel conceded guilt for second degree murder despite defendant’s “express wish to maintain his innocence”]; People v. Bloom (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1008 , 1015 [same where counsel conceded guilt for two of three murder counts despite defendant’s objection]; Peop 2024Presented with express statements of the client’s will to maintain innocence, however, counsel may not steer the ship the other way.” (Id. at p. 424; People v. Bloom (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1008 , 1039– 1042 [counsel’s concession that the defendant killed two victims, over the defendant’s express objection, in order to argue for lesser included offenses on first degree murder charge was structural error under McCoy]; People v. Flores (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 270 , 279–282 [counsel’s reasonable legal strategy to concede actus reus of charged crimes violated defendant’s right to maintain innocence of tho | 3 | 6 |
People v. Eddygreen2 sentences2025(See People v. Eddy (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 472 , 481–483 [finding McCoy error where Marsden hearing revealed evidence that defendant unequivocally objected to counsel’s concession strategy out of court, before counsel’s decision to concede guilt in closing argument].) So far as the record reveals, it is also possible that Cardenas was willing to go along with the concession strategy, at least up until the time it became clear from the jury’s guilty verdicts that the strategy had not worked. 2024Presented with express statements of the client’s will to maintain innocence, however, counsel may not steer the ship the other way.” (Id. at p. 424; People v. Bloom (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1008 , 1039– 1042 [counsel’s concession that the defendant killed two victims, over the defendant’s express objection, in order to argue for lesser included offenses on first degree murder charge was structural error under McCoy]; People v. Flores (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 270 , 279–282 [counsel’s reasonable legal strategy to concede actus reus of charged crimes violated defendant’s right to maintain innocence of tho | 2 | 9 |
People v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2023Presented with express statements of the client’s will to maintain innocence, however, counsel may not steer the ship the other way.” ( McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. _ [ 138 S.Ct. at p. 1509 ].) A McCoy violation thus requires the record shows “(1) that defendant’s plain objective is to maintain his innocence and pursue an acquittal, and (2) that trial counsel disregards that objective and overrides his client by conceding guilt.” (People v. Eddy (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 472, 482 .) “California courts following McCoy repeatedly have held that [the] case applies only where defendant actively opposes coun 2023Presented with express statements of the client’s will to maintain innocence, however, counsel may not steer the ship the other way.” ( McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. _ [ 138 S.Ct. at p. 1509 ].) A McCoy violation thus requires the record shows “(1) that defendant’s plain objective is to maintain his innocence and pursue an acquittal, and (2) that trial counsel disregards that objective and overrides his client by conceding guilt.” (People v. Eddy (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 472, 482 .) “California courts following McCoy repeatedly have held that [the] case applies only where defendant actively opposes coun | 2 | 3 |
McCoy v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2026(Cf. McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. 428 ; see Bloom, at p. 1041 [“McCoy error requires reversal of the affected counts and associated allegations”].)5 5 These circumstances differ from those in Bloom. 2026(See McCoy, supra, 584 U.S. at p. 424 [explaining that “[i]f a client declines to participate in his defense, then an attorney may permissibly guide the defense pursuant to the strategy she believes to be in the defendant’s best interest”]; People v. Franks (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 883, 891 [no McCoy error when counsel’s concession occurred after defendant refused to speak to counsel, rejected counsel’s correspondence, and declined to attend trial].) On the record that Petrakis has delimited, there is no evidence that trial counsel knew when she conceded Petrakis’s guilt for the lesser included m | 1 | 11 |
People v. Christian S.green2 sentences2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. 2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. | 1 | 1 |
Varela v. Wells Fargo Bankgreen2 sentences1975Code, § 623.) “ ‘The four essential elements to the application of the doctrine of estoppel are (1) knowledge of the facts by the party to be estopped; (2) intention that his conduct be acted upon, or he acts so that the party asserting estoppel has a right to believe that the conduct is so intended; (3) the party asserting *86 estoppel must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) reliance on the conduct to his injury.’ ” (Varela v. Wells Fargo Bank, 15 Cal.App.3d 741, 748 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 428 ].) In its ruling, the trial court rejected McCoy’s defense of estoppel because it believed that McCoy s 1975Code, § 623.) “ ‘The four essential elements to the application of the doctrine of estoppel are (1) knowledge of the facts by the party to be estopped; (2) intention that his conduct be acted upon, or he acts so that the party asserting estoppel has a right to believe that the conduct is so intended; (3) the party asserting *86 estoppel must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) reliance on the conduct to his injury.’ ” (Varela v. Wells Fargo Bank, 15 Cal.App.3d 741, 748 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 428 ].) In its ruling, the trial court rejected McCoy’s defense of estoppel because it believed that McCoy s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Florida v. Nixon
green
2 sentences2022(McCoy, at p. 1507; Bloom, at p. 1036.) By contrast, “when a defendant, informed by counsel [of a strategy to admit criminal conduct], neither consents nor objects to the course counsel describes ..., counsel is not automatically barred from pursuing that course.” (Florida v. Nixon (2004) 543 U.S. 175, 178 .) We review the denial of a new trial motion for abuse of discretion (People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 521 ); whether McCoy error occurred is a question of law which we review de novo. 1. 2021(Id. at p. 829.) The defendant filed a motion for new trial arguing that “the trial court violated his constitutional rights by allowing [counsel] to concede McCoy ‘committed three murders,’ [citation], over McCoy’s objection.” (McCoy, supra, 200 L.Ed.2d at p. 829 .) The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the motion for new trial, “ruling that defense counsel had authority so to concede guilt, despite the defendant’s opposition to any admission of guilt . . . because counsel reasonably believed that admitting guilt afforded McCoy the best chance to avoid a death sentence.” (Ibid.) The United State | 4 | 2021–2024 |
State of Louisiana v. Brian Douglas Horn
neutral
2 sentences2022(See also People v. Flores (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 270, 273, 275 [finding McCoy error where counsel conceded killing and argued absence of premeditation over the defendant’s objection];12 People v. Eddy (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 472, 477 [finding McCoy error where counsel conceded guilt of manslaughter over client’s objection]; State v. Horn (La. 2018) 251 So.3d 1069 , 1072–1074 [finding McCoy error where counsel conceded capital defendant was guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter over defendant’s objection].) The Attorney General does not dispute that McCoy forbids counsel from conceding g 2022(See also People v. Flores (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 270, 273, 275 [finding McCoy error where counsel conceded killing and argued absence of premeditation over the defendant’s objection];12 People v. Eddy (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 472, 477 [finding McCoy error where counsel conceded guilt of manslaughter over client’s objection]; State v. Horn (La. 2018) 251 So.3d 1069 , 1072–1074 [finding McCoy error where counsel conceded capital defendant was guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter over defendant’s objection].) The Attorney General does not dispute that McCoy forbids counsel from conceding g | 2 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Marsden
green
2 sentences2020(People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden); Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 .) In a Marsden hearing held on May 21, 2014, Son told the court defense counsel was exploring a self-defense theory for Son’s defense. 2020(People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden); Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 .) In a Marsden hearing held on May 21, 2014, Son told the court defense counsel was exploring a self-defense theory for Son’s defense. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2020(People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden); Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 .) In a Marsden hearing held on May 21, 2014, Son told the court defense counsel was exploring a self-defense theory for Son’s defense. 2020(People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden); Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 .) In a Marsden hearing held on May 21, 2014, Son told the court defense counsel was exploring a self-defense theory for Son’s defense. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Maury
green
1 sentence2026In any event, the record is insufficient to rebut the “strong presumption” that counsel’s conduct, at least as it pertains to consultation, fell within the “wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 389 .) 12 voluntarily absent himself from significant portions of trial (including closing arguments), told counsel that he “definitely won’t talk to [her]”, and at one point, may have blocked counsel’s number to prevent counsel from reaching him. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Caro
green
2 sentences2022(McCoy, at p. 1507; Bloom, at p. 1036.) By contrast, “when a defendant, informed by counsel [of a strategy to admit criminal conduct], neither consents nor objects to the course counsel describes ..., counsel is not automatically barred from pursuing that course.” (Florida v. Nixon (2004) 543 U.S. 175, 178 .) We review the denial of a new trial motion for abuse of discretion (People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 521 ); whether McCoy error occurred is a question of law which we review de novo. 1. 2022(McCoy, at p. 1507; Bloom, at p. 1036.) By contrast, “when a defendant, informed by counsel [of a strategy to admit criminal conduct], neither consents nor objects to the course counsel describes ..., counsel is not automatically barred from pursuing that course.” (Florida v. Nixon (2004) 543 U.S. 175, 178 .) We review the denial of a new trial motion for abuse of discretion (People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 521 ); whether McCoy error occurred is a question of law which we review de novo. 1. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Burroughs
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Burroughs (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 378, 409-411 .) Here, before McCoy’s hearing for conditional release, the prosecution sought to admit (as Exhibit One) the certified police reports of the predicated offense (the 1990 rape of Lisa H.). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Mayfield
green
1 sentence2020(People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 142, 199 .) Because the facts bearing on a possible McCoy violation differ for each robbery, we analyze them separately. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Steven B.
green
1 sentence2015After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 As cited above, these facts are taken from our opinion in a prior appeal in this case where we were asked to independently review McCoy’s challenge to an order denying his petition to recall his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, added by Proposition 36. (§ 1170.126.) On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Humphrey
green
2 sentences2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. 2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Curtis
green
2 sentences2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. 2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Aris
green
2 sentences2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. 2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Flannel
red
2 sentences2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. 2000Imperfect self-defense (also called unreasonable self-defense) applies when the defendant actually believes he or she is facing an imminent and unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury, and actually believes the acts which cause the victim's death are necessary to avert the threat, but these beliefs are objectively unreasonable. ( People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 , 56 Cal. Rptr.2d 142 , 921 P.2d 1 ; In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 773-774, 783 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 33 , 872 P.2d 574 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ; People v. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.