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.
22 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 6 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. Anthonygreen2 sentences2022(Silva, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 520; see also People v. James (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 604 , 610–611 [defendant was not entitled to jury trial to determine whether he was eligible for relief under section 1172.6]; see also People v. Anthony (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1102, 1156 [The “retroactive relief they are afforded by Senate Bill [No.] 1437 is not subject to Sixth Amendment analysis.”].) Without citation to case law, appellant argues Howard’s analysis is erroneous because “requiring the superior court to resentence a defendant on a strike offense that he did not plead guilty or nolo contender 2022(Silva, supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at p. 520; see also People v. James (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 604 , 610–611 [defendant was not entitled to jury trial to determine whether he was eligible for relief under section 1172.6]; see also People v. Anthony (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1102, 1156 [The “retroactive relief they are afforded by Senate Bill [No.] 1437 is not subject to Sixth Amendment analysis.”].) Without citation to case law, appellant argues Howard’s analysis is erroneous because “requiring the superior court to resentence a defendant on a strike offense that he did not plead guilty or nolo contender | 2 | 2 |
People v. Oringreen2 sentences2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could 2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could | 1 | 2 |
The People v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2016As for Howard's claim that the trial court's ruling stripped him of his right to present a defense, we observe that application of the ordinary rules of evidence " ' "do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's [state or federal constitutional] right to present a defense." ' " (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1202 ; see also People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 728 .) " ' "Courts retain . . . a traditional and intrinsic power to exercise discretion to control the admission of evidence in the interests of orderly procedure and the avoidance of prejudice." ' " (People v. Lawley ( 2015Howard cites two cases in support of his argument that A.R.’s opinion was speculative because it was based on her “impression.” In People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658 , the defendant made an offer of proof that a witness had an “ ‘impression’ ” that the victim had removed the key to her apartment from its hiding place because her daughter would sometimes enter the apartment without her permission, providing “an alternate explanation for [the victim’s] missing jewelry” and undermining the daughter’s credibility. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Fuentesgreen2 sentences2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could 2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could | 1 | 1 |
People v. Littlegreen2 sentences2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sifuentesgreen2 sentences2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016(Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 ; Howard, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 505.) We will refer to these as the “Howard factors.” In addition to the Howard factors, People v. Andrade (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 963 (Andrade) provides two additional considerations for a trial court: the effect on society’s protection if the defendant is actually guilty, and the probability of greater incarceration upon conviction. ( Andrade, supra, at p. 977 .) A trial court should exercise its discretionary powers and grant a dismissal in the interests of justice when the balance falls clearly in favor of the defendant. 2016(Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 ; Howard, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 505.) We will refer to these as the “Howard factors.” In addition to the Howard factors, People v. Andrade (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 963 (Andrade) provides two additional considerations for a trial court: the effect on society’s protection if the defendant is actually guilty, and the probability of greater incarceration upon conviction. ( Andrade, supra, at p. 977 .) A trial court should exercise its discretionary powers and grant a dismissal in the interests of justice when the balance falls clearly in favor of the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lawleygreen1 sentence2016As for Howard's claim that the trial court's ruling stripped him of his right to present a defense, we observe that application of the ordinary rules of evidence " ' "do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's [state or federal constitutional] right to present a defense." ' " (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1202 ; see also People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 728 .) " ' "Courts retain . . . a traditional and intrinsic power to exercise discretion to control the admission of evidence in the interests of orderly procedure and the avoidance of prejudice." ' " (People v. Lawley ( | 1 | 1 |
People v. Reddgreen1 sentence2015(See People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 730 ["Defendant also contends that the admission of out- of-court identifications violates a defendant's right under the Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses, even when the declarant testifies. | 1 | 1 |
| Varshock v. Department of Forestrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Soule v. General Motors Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Municipal Court (Kong)green | 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. Howard
green
2 sentences2018People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ( Howard ) held that a plea is valid notwithstanding the lack of express advisements and waivers "if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances." ( Id . at p. 1175, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 .) Some appellate courts have concluded, however, that the Howard test only applies to "incomplete" advisements but not to "silent records," where there is a total absence of advisements and waivers. 2018People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ( Howard ) held that a plea is valid notwithstanding the lack of express advisements and waivers "if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances." ( Id . at p. 1175, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 .) Some appellate courts have concluded, however, that the Howard test only applies to "incomplete" advisements but not to "silent records," where there is a total absence of advisements and waivers. | 4 | 1992–2018 |
United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC
green
2 sentences2024(See United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 ; see also id. at p. 157 [appellate courts are not required to search the record for error].) Howard’s brief does provide sufficient arguments as to some excluded statements by Avrit: statements about this shower wand’s composition, how this wand could break (or shear), when and how this wand did break (the housekeeper “must have” broken it, either intentionally or unintentionally, after Howard’s morning shower), and the hotel’s resulting notice of the break. 2024(See United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 ; see also id. at p. 157 [appellate courts are not required to search the record for error].) Howard’s brief does provide sufficient arguments as to some excluded statements by Avrit: statements about this shower wand’s composition, how this wand could break (or shear), when and how this wand did break (the housekeeper “must have” broken it, either intentionally or unintentionally, after Howard’s morning shower), and the hotel’s resulting notice of the break. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Sumstine
green
2 sentences1999Moreover, Howard does not change the nature of the hearing required by Sumstine, supra, 36 Cal.3d 909 . 1999Moreover, Howard does not change the nature of the hearing required by Sumstine, supra, 36 Cal.3d 909 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 707 , 687 P.2d 904 . | 2 | 1999–1999 |
People v. ORABUENA
green
2 sentences2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could 2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Roberts
green
2 sentences2024Indeed, “ ‘[m]odern penal law is founded on moral culpability” and “ ‘[o]ur collective conscience does not allow punishment where it cannot impose blame.’ ” (People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 316 .) We have remarked that many of the Howard factors are “mirror[ed]” by the mitigating circumstances set forth in the 16 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. 2024Indeed, “ ‘[m]odern penal law is founded on moral culpability” and “ ‘[o]ur collective conscience does not allow punishment where it cannot impose blame.’ ” (People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 316 .) We have remarked that many of the Howard factors are “mirror[ed]” by the mitigating circumstances set forth in the 16 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bosco v. Justice Court
green
2 sentences2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could 2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Cina
green
2 sentences2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could 2024(See Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 [noting application of the Howard factors pretrial, before any 13 Almost a decade after Williams I, the electorate enacted section 1385.1, which states, “[n]otwithstanding Section 1385 or any other provision of law, a judge shall not strike or dismiss any special circumstance . . . .” (§ 1385.1; People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 230, fn. 9 .) 18 WHEELER v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Jenkins, J. determination of guilt].) For example, in People v. Cina (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 136 , the court suggested a trial court could | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2024(See People v. Morales (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 978 , 995, fn. 4; People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 604 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 ; § 1259.) Regarding the merits of Howard’s claim, we are not persuaded that the homicide instructions here omitted an element of murder or misstated the burden of proof on heat of passion and imperfect self-defense. 2024(See People v. Morales (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 978 , 995, fn. 4; People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 604 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 ; § 1259.) Regarding the merits of Howard’s claim, we are not persuaded that the homicide instructions here omitted an element of murder or misstated the burden of proof on heat of passion and imperfect self-defense. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. S.M.
green
2 sentences2024(Id. at pp. 88, 99.) And more recently, in People v. S.M. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 210 , the court affirmed dismissal of felony and misdemeanor fraud charges “allegedly arising out of the submission of a single false insurance claim to [an] automobile insurer in the amount of $360.” (Id. at p. 213.) The dismissal was seen as permissible given the small amount at issue; the lack of actual loss to the insurer; defendant’s age, lack of criminal history, and good behavior during the pendency of the case; and the impact a conviction would have on the defendant’s professional career. 2024(Id. at pp. 88, 99.) And more recently, in People v. S.M. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 210 , the court affirmed dismissal of felony and misdemeanor fraud charges “allegedly arising out of the submission of a single false insurance claim to [an] automobile insurer in the amount of $360.” (Id. at p. 213.) The dismissal was seen as permissible given the small amount at issue; the lack of actual loss to the insurer; defendant’s age, lack of criminal history, and good behavior during the pendency of the case; and the impact a conviction would have on the defendant’s professional career. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Grandberry
green
2 sentences2024(See People v. Morales (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 978 , 995, fn. 4; People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 604 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 ; § 1259.) Regarding the merits of Howard’s claim, we are not persuaded that the homicide instructions here omitted an element of murder or misstated the burden of proof on heat of passion and imperfect self-defense. 2024(See People v. Morales (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 978 , 995, fn. 4; People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 604 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 ; § 1259.) Regarding the merits of Howard’s claim, we are not persuaded that the homicide instructions here omitted an element of murder or misstated the burden of proof on heat of passion and imperfect self-defense. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Mosby
green
2 sentences2018Farwell argues that Mosby "made a clear statement that the circumstantial evidence test is not applicable to silent record cases." He quotes the following passage: "[I]f the transcript does not reveal complete advisements and waivers, the reviewing court must examine the record of 'the entire proceeding'...." ( Mosby , supra , 33 Cal.4th at p. 361 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 .) According to Farwell, our use of the word "complete" means that the Howard test applies to "incomplete" advisements, but not silent record cases. 2018Farwell argues that Mosby "made a clear statement that the circumstantial evidence test is not applicable to silent record cases." He quotes the following passage: "[I]f the transcript does not reveal complete advisements and waivers, the reviewing court must examine the record of 'the entire proceeding'...." ( Mosby , supra , 33 Cal.4th at p. 361 , 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 .) According to Farwell, our use of the word "complete" means that the Howard test applies to "incomplete" advisements, but not silent record cases. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Stills
green
2 sentences2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Moore
green
2 sentences2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Sovereign
green
2 sentences2018(See, e.g., People v. Sovereign (1993) 27 Cal.App.4th 317 , 320-321, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 38 [applying Howard test where defendant was advised of his right to confrontation and his privilege against compelled self-incrimination, but not his right to a jury trial].) It bears emphasis that silent record cases will face their own practical hurdle. 2018(See, e.g., People v. Sovereign (1993) 27 Cal.App.4th 317 , 320-321, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 38 [applying Howard test where defendant was advised of his right to confrontation and his privilege against compelled self-incrimination, but not his right to a jury trial].) It bears emphasis that silent record cases will face their own practical hurdle. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 2018(See People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305 , 310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [court applied the Howard test and held the record was "inadequate to support a voluntary and intelligent waiver"]; People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766 , 1770-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [court applied the Howard test and held it could not conclude the admission was voluntary and intelligent]; People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169 , 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650 [court applied the Howard test and found the record did not reflect an actual waiver]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411 , 414, 418, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Linton
green
1 sentence2016As for Howard's claim that the trial court's ruling stripped him of his right to present a defense, we observe that application of the ordinary rules of evidence " ' "do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's [state or federal constitutional] right to present a defense." ' " (People v. Linton (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1146, 1202 ; see also People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 728 .) " ' "Courts retain . . . a traditional and intrinsic power to exercise discretion to control the admission of evidence in the interests of orderly procedure and the avoidance of prejudice." ' " (People v. Lawley ( | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Andrade
green
2 sentences2016(Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 ; Howard, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 505.) We will refer to these as the “Howard factors.” In addition to the Howard factors, People v. Andrade (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 963 (Andrade) provides two additional considerations for a trial court: the effect on society’s protection if the defendant is actually guilty, and the probability of greater incarceration upon conviction. ( Andrade, supra, at p. 977 .) A trial court should exercise its discretionary powers and grant a dismissal in the interests of justice when the balance falls clearly in favor of the defendant. 2016(Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 946 ; Howard, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 505.) We will refer to these as the “Howard factors.” In addition to the Howard factors, People v. Andrade (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 963 (Andrade) provides two additional considerations for a trial court: the effect on society’s protection if the defendant is actually guilty, and the probability of greater incarceration upon conviction. ( Andrade, supra, at p. 977 .) A trial court should exercise its discretionary powers and grant a dismissal in the interests of justice when the balance falls clearly in favor of the defendant. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Carter
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1209 .) Decisions as to what witnesses to call and evidence to present is ordinarily a matter of trial tactics and not grounds for reversal. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Edwards green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Swain
green
1 sentence2015(See People v. Cortez (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1223, 1226-1227 ; People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593 , 602- 603; Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 415.) 14 In light of this conclusion, we need not consider Howard’s claim that his conviction of first degree murder must be reversed because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of second degree murder. 27 option of either retrying him for first degree murder or accepting a modification of the judgment to reflect a conviction for second degree murder.15 (Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 168 ; People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Cortez green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Dykes green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Manibusan
green
1 sentence2015“We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87 .) Initially, we must address which movement of A.R. is at issue. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Chiu red | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Calemine v. Samuelson green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Grafton v. Mollica green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Geiger red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. Dorsey green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.