18 California opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2023 1 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. Rowegreen2 sentences2000Code, §§ 310, 402, 405; People v. Rowe (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1030 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 816 ].) That a defendant is entitled to a voir dire hearing on the Miranda question before his extrajudicial statements are admitted into evidence is beyond question. [Citations.] And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with ‘unmistakable clarity.’ (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .)” (People v. Bennett (1976) 58 Cal.Ap 2000Code, §§ 310, 402, 405; People v. Rowe (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1030 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 816 ].) That a defendant is entitled to a voir dire hearing on the Miranda question before his extrajudicial statements are admitted into evidence is beyond question. [Citations.] And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with ‘unmistakable clarity.’ (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .)” (People v. Bennett (1976) 58 Cal.Ap | 2 | 2 |
Sims v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2000Code, §§ 310, 402, 405; People v. Rowe (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1030 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 816 ].) That a defendant is entitled to a voir dire hearing on the Miranda question before his extrajudicial statements are admitted into evidence is beyond question. [Citations.] And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with ‘unmistakable clarity.’ (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .)” (People v. Bennett (1976) 58 Cal.Ap 2000Code, §§ 310, 402, 405; People v. Rowe (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1030 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 816 ].) That a defendant is entitled to a voir dire hearing on the Miranda question before his extrajudicial statements are admitted into evidence is beyond question. [Citations.] And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with ‘unmistakable clarity.’ (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .)” (People v. Bennett (1976) 58 Cal.Ap | 2 | 2 |
Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Womengreen2 sentences1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic 1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Rulegreen2 sentences1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic 1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic | 2 | 2 |
People v. Durangreen2 sentences1971(People v. Duran, 269 Cal.App.2d 112, 116-117 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 459 ].) On the other hand, the court’s refusal to allow defendant to testify during the voir dire hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of his statement was error. 1971(People v. Duran, 269 Cal.App.2d 112, 116-117 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 459 ].) On the other hand, the court’s refusal to allow defendant to testify during the voir dire hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of his statement was error. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Silveria and Travisgreen1 sentence2023(Cf. People v. Claxton (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 638, 668-669 [nine-day gap; court’s “‘explanation’” of law during voir dire dissipated when correct instruction given during closing instructions], overruled on other grounds in People v. Fuentes (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 956 , 967 & fn. 10; People v. Silveria (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 305-306 [same, but with four-month gap between erroneous voir dire instruction and correct closing instruction].) 8 Because the trial court instructed on a now-invalid theory, we must reverse the ruling summarily denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and remand for an | 1 | 1 |
People v. Claxtongreen1 sentence2023(Cf. People v. Claxton (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 638, 668-669 [nine-day gap; court’s “‘explanation’” of law during voir dire dissipated when correct instruction given during closing instructions], overruled on other grounds in People v. Fuentes (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 956 , 967 & fn. 10; People v. Silveria (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 305-306 [same, but with four-month gap between erroneous voir dire instruction and correct closing instruction].) 8 Because the trial court instructed on a now-invalid theory, we must reverse the ruling summarily denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and remand for an | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2023(Kelly, at pp. 203-204 [finding error when instruction given during voir dire included “erroneous statement” of the law not later corrected]; People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, 979, 984-986 [reversal required due to erroneous jury instruction on the definition of reasonable doubt given during voir dire, even when court attempted to correct instruction at close of trial]; cf. Pearson, at pp. 414-415 [any error in earlier-given instructions was harmless where trial court instructed jury only to consider closing instructions].) What is more, this was not a lengthy trial where the time | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2010(Ibid.) In 1992, when the court issued its rulings, our decisions emphasized that the voir dire inquiry in a capital case “is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an ‘open mind’ on the penalty determination.” (People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 597 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 399 , 789 P.2d 127 ].) Applying this principle, People v. Mason (1991) 52 *839 Cal.3d 909 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 802 P.2d 950 ] held the court properly refused to allow questioning that gave prospective jurors substantial information about the defendant’s elderly victims and the manner in wh 2010(Ibid.) In 1992, when the court issued its rulings, our decisions emphasized that the voir dire inquiry in a capital case “is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an ‘open mind’ on the penalty determination.” (People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 597 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 399 , 789 P.2d 127 ].) Applying this principle, People v. Mason (1991) 52 *839 Cal.3d 909 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 802 P.2d 950 ] held the court properly refused to allow questioning that gave prospective jurors substantial information about the defendant’s elderly victims and the manner in wh | 1 | 1 |
Medina v. Californiagreen2 sentences2000Because a state has the power to adopt and regulate criminal procedures under which its laws are carried out, “ ‘its decision in this regard is not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless “it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” [Citations.]’ . . . [B]ecause the States have considerable expertise in matters of criminal procedure and the criminal process is grounded in centuries of common-law tradition, it is appropriate to exercise substantial deference to legislative judgments in this ar 2000Because a state has the power to adopt and regulate criminal procedures under which its laws are carried out, “ ‘its decision in this regard is not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless “it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” [Citations.]’ . . . [B]ecause the States have considerable expertise in matters of criminal procedure and the criminal process is grounded in centuries of common-law tradition, it is appropriate to exercise substantial deference to legislative judgments in this ar | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2000Code, §§ 310, 402, 405; People v. Rowe (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1030 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 816 ].) That a defendant is entitled to a voir dire hearing on the Miranda question before his extrajudicial statements are admitted into evidence is beyond question. [Citations.] And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with ‘unmistakable clarity.’ (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .)” (People v. Bennett (1976) 58 Cal.Ap 2000Code, §§ 310, 402, 405; People v. Rowe (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 1023, 1030 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 816 ].) That a defendant is entitled to a voir dire hearing on the Miranda question before his extrajudicial statements are admitted into evidence is beyond question. [Citations.] And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with ‘unmistakable clarity.’ (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .)” (People v. Bennett (1976) 58 Cal.Ap | 1 | 1 |
Wainwright v. Wittgreen2 sentences1992Under Witherspoon , a prospective juror can be excluded for cause where he makes it "unmistakably clear" he would "automatically" vote a certain way on penalty. ( Id., at p. 522, fn. 21 [ 20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785 ].) A juror with such views is also "substantially impair[ed]" and excludable under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] ( Witt ). 1992Under Witherspoon , a prospective juror can be excluded for cause where he makes it "unmistakably clear" he would "automatically" vote a certain way on penalty. ( Id., at p. 522, fn. 21 [ 20 L.Ed.2d at p. 785 ].) A juror with such views is also "substantially impair[ed]" and excludable under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] ( Witt ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Eligreen2 sentences1976(See People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 76 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 916 , 424 P.2d 356 ]; People v. Green (1965) 63 Cal.2d 561, 565 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 407 P.2d 653 ]; People v. Schader (1965) 62 Cal.2d 716, 728 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1974 Supp.) § 492, pp. 410-411.) And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with “unmistakable clarity.” (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra. 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .) 1976(See People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 76 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 916 , 424 P.2d 356 ]; People v. Green (1965) 63 Cal.2d 561, 565 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 407 P.2d 653 ]; People v. Schader (1965) 62 Cal.2d 716, 728 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1974 Supp.) § 492, pp. 410-411.) And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with “unmistakable clarity.” (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra. 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greengreen2 sentences1976(See People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 76 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 916 , 424 P.2d 356 ]; People v. Green (1965) 63 Cal.2d 561, 565 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 407 P.2d 653 ]; People v. Schader (1965) 62 Cal.2d 716, 728 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1974 Supp.) § 492, pp. 410-411.) And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with “unmistakable clarity.” (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra. 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .) 1976(See People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 76 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 916 , 424 P.2d 356 ]; People v. Green (1965) 63 Cal.2d 561, 565 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 407 P.2d 653 ]; People v. Schader (1965) 62 Cal.2d 716, 728 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1974 Supp.) § 492, pp. 410-411.) And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with “unmistakable clarity.” (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra. 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Schadergreen2 sentences1976(See People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 76 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 916 , 424 P.2d 356 ]; People v. Green (1965) 63 Cal.2d 561, 565 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 407 P.2d 653 ]; People v. Schader (1965) 62 Cal.2d 716, 728 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1974 Supp.) § 492, pp. 410-411.) And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with “unmistakable clarity.” (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra. 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .) 1976(See People v. Eli (1967) 66 Cal.2d 63, 76 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 916 , 424 P.2d 356 ]; People v. Green (1965) 63 Cal.2d 561, 565 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 477 , 407 P.2d 653 ]; People v. Schader (1965) 62 Cal.2d 716, 728 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 193 , 401 P.2d 665 ]; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1974 Supp.) § 492, pp. 410-411.) And while the trial court need not make formal findings, its determination on the Miranda question must be reflected in the record with “unmistakable clarity.” (Sims v. Georgia (1967) 385 U.S. 538, 544 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 593, 598 , 87 S.Ct. 639, 643 ]; People v. Rowe, supra. 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 1029 .) | 1 | 1 |
| Gilbert v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic 1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Wadegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Carusogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cottle v. Gibbongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Grainger v. Antoyangreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Romerogreen2 sentences1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic 1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Burnsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Laursengreen | 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. Bittaker
green
2 sentences1996(See People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 , 1081 et seq. [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 774 P.2d 659 ] (hereafter Bittaker).) Defendant now contends that because the trial court, and not defense counsel, conducted the primary voir dire inquiry, this procedure violated his constitutional right to an impartial jury, because it limited counsel’s ability adequately to question the prospective jurors. 1996(See People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 , 1081 et seq. [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 630 , 774 P.2d 659 ] (hereafter Bittaker).) Defendant now contends that because the trial court, and not defense counsel, conducted the primary voir dire inquiry, this procedure violated his constitutional right to an impartial jury, because it limited counsel’s ability adequately to question the prospective jurors. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Fioritto
green
2 sentences1969(People v. Fioritto, 68 Cal.2d 714 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 441 P.2d 625 ].) 1 A voir dire hearing was conducted in the absence of the jury, with respect to the question of whether advice of constitutional rights was given and, if so, whether there had been a waiver, and if so, when and how. 1969(People v. Fioritto, 68 Cal.2d 714 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 441 P.2d 625 ].) 1 A voir dire hearing was conducted in the absence of the jury, with respect to the question of whether advice of constitutional rights was given and, if so, whether there had been a waiver, and if so, when and how. | 2 | 1969–1971 |
McCluskey v. Ware
green
2 sentences1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic 1970(Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradicted. | 2 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Fuentes
green
1 sentence2023(Cf. People v. Claxton (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 638, 668-669 [nine-day gap; court’s “‘explanation’” of law during voir dire dissipated when correct instruction given during closing instructions], overruled on other grounds in People v. Fuentes (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 956 , 967 & fn. 10; People v. Silveria (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 305-306 [same, but with four-month gap between erroneous voir dire instruction and correct closing instruction].) 8 Because the trial court instructed on a now-invalid theory, we must reverse the ruling summarily denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and remand for an | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Mason
green
2 sentences2010(Ibid.) In 1992, when the court issued its rulings, our decisions emphasized that the voir dire inquiry in a capital case “is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an ‘open mind’ on the penalty determination.” (People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 597 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 399 , 789 P.2d 127 ].) Applying this principle, People v. Mason (1991) 52 *839 Cal.3d 909 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 802 P.2d 950 ] held the court properly refused to allow questioning that gave prospective jurors substantial information about the defendant’s elderly victims and the manner in wh 2010(Ibid.) In 1992, when the court issued its rulings, our decisions emphasized that the voir dire inquiry in a capital case “is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an ‘open mind’ on the penalty determination.” (People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 597 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 399 , 789 P.2d 127 ].) Applying this principle, People v. Mason (1991) 52 *839 Cal.3d 909 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 802 P.2d 950 ] held the court properly refused to allow questioning that gave prospective jurors substantial information about the defendant’s elderly victims and the manner in wh | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Phillips
green
2 sentences1996Before the jury heard Lam’s testimony, he was examined in a preliminary voir dire hearing under People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 127 , 711 P.2d 423 ], 29 During cross-examination in the Phillips hearing, Lam disclosed that several days earlier, Jeanne Flannery, a process server from the district attorney’s office, had presented him with a subpoena to appear as a witness. 1996Before the jury heard Lam’s testimony, he was examined in a preliminary voir dire hearing under People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29 [ 222 Cal.Rptr. 127 , 711 P.2d 423 ], 29 During cross-examination in the Phillips hearing, Lam disclosed that several days earlier, Jeanne Flannery, a process server from the district attorney’s office, had presented him with a subpoena to appear as a witness. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1992PENALTY PHASE ISSUES A. Death-qualifying Voir Dire At defendant's request, the court limited voir dire on the death penalty to four standard questions based on Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 ] ( Witherspoon ). 1992PENALTY PHASE ISSUES A. Death-qualifying Voir Dire At defendant's request, the court limited voir dire on the death penalty to four standard questions based on Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 ] ( Witherspoon ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cramer v. Tyars
green
2 sentences1979This has been codified in California in Evidence Code section 405 Here, the court is given the final responsibility for determining the admissibility of confessions or admissions and the court is required to make that determination outside the presence of the jury if the defendant so requests. ( People v. Culver, 10 Cal.3d 542 , 547-548, fn. 8 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 516 P.2d 887 ].) The proof of voluntariness must be beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 580 P.2d 672 ].) The Supreme Court of this state has made it clear in Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d 1979This has been codified in California in Evidence Code section 405 Here, the court is given the final responsibility for determining the admissibility of confessions or admissions and the court is required to make that determination outside the presence of the jury if the defendant so requests. ( People v. Culver, 10 Cal.3d 542 , 547-548, fn. 8 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 516 P.2d 887 ].) The proof of voluntariness must be beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 580 P.2d 672 ].) The Supreme Court of this state has made it clear in Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences1979(Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) § 475 et seq.; Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1978 supp.) § 361A et seq.) Prominent in that library is the case of Jackson v. Denno, supra, 378 U.S. 368 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 ], which held that a voir dire hearing must be held outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of the confession. 1979(Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) § 475 et seq.; Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedure (1978 supp.) § 361A et seq.) Prominent in that library is the case of Jackson v. Denno, supra, 378 U.S. 368 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 908 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 1 A.L.R.3d 1205 ], which held that a voir dire hearing must be held outside the presence of the jury to determine the admissibility of the confession. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Jimenez
red
2 sentences1979This has been codified in California in Evidence Code section 405 Here, the court is given the final responsibility for determining the admissibility of confessions or admissions and the court is required to make that determination outside the presence of the jury if the defendant so requests. ( People v. Culver, 10 Cal.3d 542 , 547-548, fn. 8 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 516 P.2d 887 ].) The proof of voluntariness must be beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 580 P.2d 672 ].) The Supreme Court of this state has made it clear in Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d 1979This has been codified in California in Evidence Code section 405 Here, the court is given the final responsibility for determining the admissibility of confessions or admissions and the court is required to make that determination outside the presence of the jury if the defendant so requests. ( People v. Culver, 10 Cal.3d 542 , 547-548, fn. 8 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 516 P.2d 887 ].) The proof of voluntariness must be beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 580 P.2d 672 ].) The Supreme Court of this state has made it clear in Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Culver
green
2 sentences1979This has been codified in California in Evidence Code section 405 Here, the court is given the final responsibility for determining the admissibility of confessions or admissions and the court is required to make that determination outside the presence of the jury if the defendant so requests. ( People v. Culver, 10 Cal.3d 542 , 547-548, fn. 8 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 516 P.2d 887 ].) The proof of voluntariness must be beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 580 P.2d 672 ].) The Supreme Court of this state has made it clear in Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d 1979This has been codified in California in Evidence Code section 405 Here, the court is given the final responsibility for determining the admissibility of confessions or admissions and the court is required to make that determination outside the presence of the jury if the defendant so requests. ( People v. Culver, 10 Cal.3d 542 , 547-548, fn. 8 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 183 , 516 P.2d 887 ].) The proof of voluntariness must be beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Jimenez, 21 Cal.3d 595 [ 147 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 580 P.2d 672 ].) The Supreme Court of this state has made it clear in Cramer v. Tyars, 23 Cal.3d | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| People v. Fowler green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1970The district attorney told the jury that the narcotics agent Pizzo would testify that when defendant was asked to empty his pockets debris fell on the paper and “That at that time there were statements made by the defendant when the debris fell out of his pocket to the effect that the amount that fell out of the pocket was not a usable quantity or not a usable amount.” However, after a voir dire hearing the trial court refused to permit Pizzo to relate defendant’s statement upon the ground defendant had not been advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. 1970The district attorney told the jury that the narcotics agent Pizzo would testify that when defendant was asked to empty his pockets debris fell on the paper and “That at that time there were statements made by the defendant when the debris fell out of his pocket to the effect that the amount that fell out of the pocket was not a usable quantity or not a usable amount.” However, after a voir dire hearing the trial court refused to permit Pizzo to relate defendant’s statement upon the ground defendant had not been advised of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| People v. Martin green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Padgitt
green
1 sentence1970The order of the trial court overruling his objection to the admission of in-court identification testimony, after the voir dire hearing respecting the alleged illegality of the photo-identification procedure, implies a finding the photo-identification procedure complied with due process requirements. ( Griffith Co. v. San Diego College for Women, 45 Cal.2d 501, 507 [ 289 P.2d 476 , 47 A.L.R.2d 1349 ]; Estate of Rule, 25 Cal.2d 1, 10 [ 152 P.2d 1003 , 155 A.L.R. 1319 ].) (3) This finding will be sustained if supported by any substantial evidence, direct or indirect, contradicted or uncontradic | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| People v. Short green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| People v. Dorado green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.