19 California opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2024 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. Capistranogreen2 sentences2022(See, e.g., People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 875, fn. 11 , overruled on a different point in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 104 .) Where “a defendant asserts that an instruction is incorrect in law an objection is not required.” (Capistrano, at p. 875, fn. 11.) Constitutional challenges are generally placed in one of two categories. 2022(See, e.g., People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 875, fn. 11 , overruled on a different point in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 104 .) Where “a defendant asserts that an instruction is incorrect in law an objection is not required.” (Capistrano, at p. 875, fn. 11.) Constitutional challenges are generally placed in one of two categories. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Keygreen2 sentences1989When the defendant asserts a defense of consent but not a Mayberry defense, the defendant's intent is unequivocal and the evidence is not admissible. ( People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 88, fn. 7 [ 201 Cal. Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ]; see People v. Key (1984) 153 Cal. App.3d 888, 894-895 [ 203 Cal. Rptr. 144 ].) [2] (1d) The issue of consent to the intercourse was the focal point of the trial. 1989When the defendant asserts a defense of consent but not a Mayberry defense, the defendant's intent is unequivocal and the evidence is not admissible. ( People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 88, fn. 7 [ 201 Cal. Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ]; see People v. Key (1984) 153 Cal. App.3d 888, 894-895 [ 203 Cal. Rptr. 144 ].) [2] (1d) The issue of consent to the intercourse was the focal point of the trial. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tassellgreen2 sentences1989When the defendant asserts a defense of consent but not a Mayberry defense, the defendant's intent is unequivocal and the evidence is not admissible. ( People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 88, fn. 7 [ 201 Cal. Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ]; see People v. Key (1984) 153 Cal. App.3d 888, 894-895 [ 203 Cal. Rptr. 144 ].) [2] (1d) The issue of consent to the intercourse was the focal point of the trial. 1989When the defendant asserts a defense of consent but not a Mayberry defense, the defendant's intent is unequivocal and the evidence is not admissible. ( People v. Tassell (1984) 36 Cal.3d 77, 88, fn. 7 [ 201 Cal. Rptr. 567 , 679 P.2d 1 ]; see People v. Key (1984) 153 Cal. App.3d 888, 894-895 [ 203 Cal. Rptr. 144 ].) [2] (1d) The issue of consent to the intercourse was the focal point of the trial. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Sotelo-Urenagreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529 , 582−583 [“An expert’s opinion that a form of mental illness can lead to impulsive behavior is relevant to the existence vel non of the mental states of premeditation and deliberation”]; People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073 , 1088−1089 (Humphrey) [evidence of battered women’s syndrome relevant to self-defense]; People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732, 747 [evidence of homelessness heightened sensitivity to threats after being repeatedly subjected to threats of violence and actual violence relevant to demonstrate individual’s subject | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gionisgreen1 sentence2022If it would, the contention must be rejected . . . ; if it would not, the court must then and only then reach the issue whether on the whole record the harm resulted in a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the Constitution.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 535 (Bell); accord, People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1215 .) The same rule applies when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. ( Bell, supra, at p. 535, fn. 17 .) Here, the prosecutor’s comment—that it was defense counsel’s “job” to get prosecution witnesses to say whateve | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bellgreen2 sentences2022If it would, the contention must be rejected . . . ; if it would not, the court must then and only then reach the issue whether on the whole record the harm resulted in a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the Constitution.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 535 (Bell); accord, People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1215 .) The same rule applies when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. ( Bell, supra, at p. 535, fn. 17 .) Here, the prosecutor’s comment—that it was defense counsel’s “job” to get prosecution witnesses to say whateve 2022If it would, the contention must be rejected . . . ; if it would not, the court must then and only then reach the issue whether on the whole record the harm resulted in a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the Constitution.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 535 (Bell); accord, People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1215 .) The same rule applies when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. ( Bell, supra, at p. 535, fn. 17 .) Here, the prosecutor’s comment—that it was defense counsel’s “job” to get prosecution witnesses to say whateve | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramosgreen1 sentence2016(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ [Citations.] ‘ “In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole . . . [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given . . . . ” ’ [Citation.] ‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smitheygreen2 sentences2014(People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976-977, fn. 7 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ]; § 1259 [“The appellate court may . . . review any instruction given, . . . even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.”].) We apply this principle to all such instructional claims except to those where we explicitly conclude that defendant’s failure to seek modification or clarification of an otherwise correct instruction resulted in forfeiture. 2014(People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976-977, fn. 7 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ]; § 1259 [“The appellate court may . . . review any instruction given, . . . even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.”].) We apply this principle to all such instructional claims except to those where we explicitly conclude that defendant’s failure to seek modification or clarification of an otherwise correct instruction resulted in forfeiture. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zamoragreen2 sentences1996In explaining the rationale for this holding, Ward observed in part that, in such situations, the concomitant of imposing section 1237.5’s requirements “would mean . . . that the prosecution must meet its traditional burden of proof in a hearing held for the purpose of determining the degree of a crime, but paradoxically a defendant would be denied the right to question on appeal whether the burden had been met.” ( 66 Cal.2d at p. 576 .) But, recognized Ward , when a defendant pleads guilty to a particular degree of the crime, thus obviating the need for an adversary hearing to determine the d 1996In explaining the rationale for this holding, Ward observed in part that, in such situations, the concomitant of imposing section 1237.5’s requirements “would mean . . . that the prosecution must meet its traditional burden of proof in a hearing held for the purpose of determining the degree of a crime, but paradoxically a defendant would be denied the right to question on appeal whether the burden had been met.” ( 66 Cal.2d at p. 576 .) But, recognized Ward , when a defendant pleads guilty to a particular degree of the crime, thus obviating the need for an adversary hearing to determine the d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences1989(See People v. Simmons (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 1070, 1072-1073 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 60 ]; People v. Pervoe (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 342, 352 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 622 ]; People v. Black (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 480, 482-483 [ 206 Cal. Rptr. 744 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 1029 [ 199 Cal. Rptr. 185 ].) [17] The same rule should apply of course, when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. 1989(See People v. Simmons (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 1070, 1072-1073 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 60 ]; People v. Pervoe (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 342, 352 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 622 ]; People v. Black (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 480, 482-483 [ 206 Cal. Rptr. 744 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 1029 [ 199 Cal. Rptr. 185 ].) [17] The same rule should apply of course, when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Blackgreen2 sentences1989(See People v. Simmons (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 1070, 1072-1073 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 60 ]; People v. Pervoe (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 342, 352 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 622 ]; People v. Black (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 480, 482-483 [ 206 Cal. Rptr. 744 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 1029 [ 199 Cal. Rptr. 185 ].) [17] The same rule should apply of course, when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. 1989(See People v. Simmons (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 1070, 1072-1073 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 60 ]; People v. Pervoe (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 342, 352 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 622 ]; People v. Black (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 480, 482-483 [ 206 Cal. Rptr. 744 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 1029 [ 199 Cal. Rptr. 185 ].) [17] The same rule should apply of course, when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pervoegreen2 sentences1989(See People v. Simmons (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 1070, 1072-1073 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 60 ]; People v. Pervoe (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 342, 352 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 622 ]; People v. Black (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 480, 482-483 [ 206 Cal. Rptr. 744 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 1029 [ 199 Cal. Rptr. 185 ].) [17] The same rule should apply of course, when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. 1989(See People v. Simmons (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 1070, 1072-1073 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 60 ]; People v. Pervoe (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 342, 352 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 622 ]; People v. Black (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 480, 482-483 [ 206 Cal. Rptr. 744 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 1029 [ 199 Cal. Rptr. 185 ].) [17] The same rule should apply of course, when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. | 1 | 1 |
Greer v. Millergreen2 sentences1989In Greer v. Miller, supra, 483 U.S. 756, 765 [ 97 L.Ed.2d 618, 630 ], the court noted both the objection to the prosecutorial misconduct, and the trial court's admonition to the jury. 1989In Greer v. Miller, supra, 483 U.S. 756, 765 [ 97 L.Ed.2d 618, 630 ], the court noted both the objection to the prosecutorial misconduct, and the trial court's admonition to the jury. | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Floridagreen2 sentences1988Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. []]]... ‘It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ Id., at 723. [Í]] At the same time, the juror’s assurances that he is equal to this task cannot be dispositive of the accused’s rights, and it remains open to the defendant to demonstrate ‘the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality.’ Ibid.” (Murphy v. Florida (1975) 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 [ 44 L.Ed.2d 1988Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. []]]... ‘It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ Id., at 723. [Í]] At the same time, the juror’s assurances that he is equal to this task cannot be dispositive of the accused’s rights, and it remains open to the defendant to demonstrate ‘the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality.’ Ibid.” (Murphy v. Florida (1975) 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 [ 44 L.Ed.2d | 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. Hardy
green
2 sentences2022(See, e.g., People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 875, fn. 11 , overruled on a different point in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 104 .) Where “a defendant asserts that an instruction is incorrect in law an objection is not required.” (Capistrano, at p. 875, fn. 11.) Constitutional challenges are generally placed in one of two categories. 2022(See, e.g., People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 875, fn. 11 , overruled on a different point in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56, 104 .) Where “a defendant asserts that an instruction is incorrect in law an objection is not required.” (Capistrano, at p. 875, fn. 11.) Constitutional challenges are generally placed in one of two categories. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Ward
green
2 sentences1996Accordingly, the statutory certificate requirement applies because defendant's contention that the sentence violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment falls squarely within the parameters of a challenge to the plea. *79 The reasoning we employ finds support in Ward, supra, 66 Cal.2d 571 , the seminal case holding that compliance with section 1237.5 is not required where the defendant asserts that error occurred in post-plea adversary hearings conducted by the trial court for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed. 1996The reasoning we employ finds support in Ward, supra, 66 Cal.2d 571 , the seminal case holding that compliance with section 1237.5 is not required where the defendant asserts that error occurred in post-plea adversary hearings conducted by the trial court for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed. | 2 | 1968–1996 |
People v. Humphrey
green
1 sentence2024(See People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529 , 582−583 [“An expert’s opinion that a form of mental illness can lead to impulsive behavior is relevant to the existence vel non of the mental states of premeditation and deliberation”]; People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073 , 1088−1089 (Humphrey) [evidence of battered women’s syndrome relevant to self-defense]; People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732, 747 [evidence of homelessness heightened sensitivity to threats after being repeatedly subjected to threats of violence and actual violence relevant to demonstrate individual’s subject | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Coddington
green
1 sentence2024(See People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529 , 582−583 [“An expert’s opinion that a form of mental illness can lead to impulsive behavior is relevant to the existence vel non of the mental states of premeditation and deliberation”]; People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073 , 1088−1089 (Humphrey) [evidence of battered women’s syndrome relevant to self-defense]; People v. Sotelo-Urena (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 732, 747 [evidence of homelessness heightened sensitivity to threats after being repeatedly subjected to threats of violence and actual violence relevant to demonstrate individual’s subject | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Garceau
green
1 sentence2022Code, § 210.) Evidence is relevant if it “tends ‘logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference’ to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive.” (People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 177 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 117 .) When a defendant asserts a claim of self- defense, evidence of a victim’s violent character is admissible under Evidence Code section 1103 to show the victim was the aggressor at the time of a killing. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Lee
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) “A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (Ibid.) However, when a defendant asserts that an instruction is incorrect in law, an objection is not required. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Yeoman
green
1 sentence2022Code, § 210.) Evidence is relevant if it “tends ‘logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference’ to establish material facts such as identity, intent, or motive.” (People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 177 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 117 .) When a defendant asserts a claim of self- defense, evidence of a victim’s violent character is admissible under Evidence Code section 1103 to show the victim was the aggressor at the time of a killing. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. . Minifie
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1070 .) A trial court “in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” (Evid. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Posey
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ [Citations.] ‘ “In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole . . . [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given . . . . ” ’ [Citation.] ‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if th | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Mendoza
green
2 sentences2014(Ibid.)2 The drafters of CALCRIM No. 3426 have not taken up the Mathson court’s recommendation.3 The Bench Notes include a citation to Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1114 , 1127–1128 and other cases for the proposition that voluntary intoxication may not be considered for general intent crimes. (2 Judicial Council of Cal., Jury Instns. (2013) Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 3426, p. 920.) Mendoza reiterates the long-held view in California that “the ‘distinction between specific and general intent crimes evolved as a judicial response to the problem of the intoxicated offender. 2014(Ibid.)2 The drafters of CALCRIM No. 3426 have not taken up the Mathson court’s recommendation.3 The Bench Notes include a citation to Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1114 , 1127–1128 and other cases for the proposition that voluntary intoxication may not be considered for general intent crimes. (2 Judicial Council of Cal., Jury Instns. (2013) Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 3426, p. 920.) Mendoza reiterates the long-held view in California that “the ‘distinction between specific and general intent crimes evolved as a judicial response to the problem of the intoxicated offender. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Lloyd
green
2 sentences2000However, in People v. Lloyd, supra, 17 Cal.4th 658 , the defendant had entered a plea of nolo contendere “without a plea bargain.” ( 17 Cal.4th at p. 661 .) On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court erred in concluding that it did not have discretion to vacate any of the findings of his prior convictions. 2000However, in People v. Lloyd, supra, 17 Cal.4th 658 , the defendant had entered a plea of nolo contendere “without a plea bargain.” ( 17 Cal.4th at p. 661 .) On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court erred in concluding that it did not have discretion to vacate any of the findings of his prior convictions. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Jones
green
2 sentences1989(See People v. Simmons (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 1070, 1072-1073 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 60 ]; People v. Pervoe (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 342, 352 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 622 ]; People v. Black (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 480, 482-483 [ 206 Cal. Rptr. 744 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 1029 [ 199 Cal. Rptr. 185 ].) [17] The same rule should apply of course, when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. 1989(See People v. Simmons (1985) 164 Cal. App.3d 1070, 1072-1073 [ 211 Cal. Rptr. 60 ]; People v. Pervoe (1984) 161 Cal. App.3d 342, 352 [ 207 Cal. Rptr. 622 ]; People v. Black (1984) 160 Cal. App.3d 480, 482-483 [ 206 Cal. Rptr. 744 ]; People v. Jones (1984) 151 Cal. App.3d 1029 [ 199 Cal. Rptr. 185 ].) [17] The same rule should apply of course, when the defendant asserts the claim as one involving denial of due process. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Randall
green
2 sentences1983Our concern lies with the fact that, for whatever reason, custodial interrogative processes did not cease upon assertion of the privilege." (Italics in original; ibid., fn. 12.) We quoted the latter reasoning in the next case in point, People v. Randall (1970) 1 Cal.3d 948, 957 , footnote 10 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 658 , 464 P.2d 114 ], concluding that the fact that the officer who obtained the confession may not have known of the defendant's prior assertion of the privilege "will not excuse his subsequent questioning.... 1983Our concern lies with the fact that, for whatever reason, custodial interrogative processes did not cease upon assertion of the privilege." (Italics in original; ibid., fn. 12.) We quoted the latter reasoning in the next case in point, People v. Randall (1970) 1 Cal.3d 948, 957 , footnote 10 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 658 , 464 P.2d 114 ], concluding that the fact that the officer who obtained the confession may not have known of the defendant's prior assertion of the privilege "will not excuse his subsequent questioning.... | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence1971(People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) The defendant asserts error in the refusal of the court to give two requested instructions. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Hardy
green
2 sentences1957Among others, the following instruction was given to the jury: “When the evidence shows that a defendant acted as if he was conscious, the law presumes that he then was conscious. *148 This presumption, however, is disputable and may be overcome or questioned by evidence to the contrary, and, if you should find that the defendant committed an act, which, if he was conscious, would have constituted the crime charged against him or have been an element of that crime, and if you should not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he then was conscious, you shall find that he then was unconscio 1957Among others, the following instruction was given to the jury: “When the evidence shows that a defendant acted as if he was conscious, the law presumes that he then was conscious. *148 This presumption, however, is disputable and may be overcome or questioned by evidence to the contrary, and, if you should find that the defendant committed an act, which, if he was conscious, would have constituted the crime charged against him or have been an element of that crime, and if you should not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he then was conscious, you shall find that he then was unconscio | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.