witnesses defense (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

witnesses defense in California

18 California opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2023 2 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.

Followed or applied (14)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Hallgreen
cal · 1980 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996In that case the defendant had offered to stipulate that he had committed a rape with force and violence; to the "`factual basis surrounding that rape'"; and to statements given to police officers by the witnesses to the defense. ( Id. at p. 638.) In distinguishing the case from People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143, 152 [ 167 Cal. Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], in which the defendant offered to stipulate to a status as an ex-felon — an element of the offense with which he was charged — we stated: "The purpose of introducing evidence of prior convictions as aggravating factors at the penalty phase

1996In that case the defendant had offered to stipulate that he had committed a rape with force and violence; to the "`factual basis surrounding that rape'"; and to statements given to police officers by the witnesses to the defense. ( Id. at p. 638.) In distinguishing the case from People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143, 152 [ 167 Cal. Rptr. 844 , 616 P.2d 826 ], in which the defendant offered to stipulate to a status as an ex-felon — an element of the offense with which he was charged — we stated: "The purpose of introducing evidence of prior convictions as aggravating factors at the penalty phase

11
New Jersey v. Portashgreen
scotus · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991(See New Jersey v. Portash (1979) 440 U.S. 450, 459 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 501, 510 , 99 S.Ct. 1292 ].) In Williams, supra, 399 U.S. 78 , the high court held that discovery of the names and addresses of a defendant's alibi witnesses is not "compelled" self-incrimination, and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment. ( Id. *367 at p. 85 [ 26 L.Ed.2d at p. 452 ].) The court reasoned, "At most, the rule only compelled [defendant] to accelerate the timing of his disclosure, by forcing him to divulge at an earlier date information that the [defendant] from the beginning planned to divulge at trial." (

1991(See New Jersey v. Portash (1979) 440 U.S. 450, 459 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 501, 510 , 99 S.Ct. 1292 ].) In Williams, supra, 399 U.S. 78 , the high court held that discovery of the names and addresses of a defendant's alibi witnesses is not "compelled" self-incrimination, and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment. ( Id. *367 at p. 85 [ 26 L.Ed.2d at p. 452 ].) The court reasoned, "At most, the rule only compelled [defendant] to accelerate the timing of his disclosure, by forcing him to divulge at an earlier date information that the [defendant] from the beginning planned to divulge at trial." (

11
Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performancegreen
cal · 1988 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989(Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1988) 45 Cal.3d 518, 530 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 378 , 754 P.2d 724 ].) In so doing, we give special weight both to the factual findings of the special masters, because of the masters’ ability to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing, and to the conclusions of the Commission, because of its expertise in matters of judicial conduct.

1989(Ryan v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1988) 45 Cal.3d 518, 530 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 378 , 754 P.2d 724 ].) In so doing, we give special weight both to the factual findings of the special masters, because of the masters’ ability to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses at the hearing, and to the conclusions of the Commission, because of its expertise in matters of judicial conduct.

11
People v. Williamsgreen
calctapp · 1957 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

11
People v. Cullengreen
cal · 1951 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

11
People v. Amayagreen
cal · 1952 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

11
People v. Mehaffeygreen
cal · 1948 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

11
People v. Jacobsongreen
cal · 1965 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

11
People v. Ogggreen
calctapp · 1958 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

11
People v. Scottgreen
calctapp · 1959 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

11
People v. Kirkesgreen
cal · 1952 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960
2 sentences

1960Moreover, “statements of facts not in evidence by the prosecuting attorney in his argument to the jury constitute misconduct.” (People v. Kirkes, 39 Cal.2d 719, 724 [ 249 P.2d 1 ].) It is argued, however, that the comments of the deputy district attorney regarding the interrogation and investigation of Miller and Mrs. McKenna and the faith and trust which the jury must have in the police and district attorney’s office, was justifiable in light of the attack made upon the credibility of the witnesses by defense counsel.

1960Moreover, “statements of facts not in evidence by the prosecuting attorney in his argument to the jury constitute misconduct.” (People v. Kirkes, 39 Cal.2d 719, 724 [ 249 P.2d 1 ].) It is argued, however, that the comments of the deputy district attorney regarding the interrogation and investigation of Miller and Mrs. McKenna and the faith and trust which the jury must have in the police and district attorney’s office, was justifiable in light of the attack made upon the credibility of the witnesses by defense counsel.

11
Kreling v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1944 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1959
2 sentences

1959They say the statement of the trial judge quoted in the margin which was made after he had stated what the findings and judgment were to be “ expressed his state of mind throughout the trial and impaired his impartiality and swayed his judgment.” 1 We find no basis for the assertion. “ It is well *330 settled in this state that the expressions of opinion uttered by a judge, in what he conceives to be a discharge of his official duties, are not evidence of bias or prejudice.” (Kreling v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.2d 305, 310-311 [ 153 P.2d 734 ].) Conviction in the mind of a judge, based on his ob

1959They say the statement of the trial judge quoted in the margin which was made after he had stated what the findings and judgment were to be “ expressed his state of mind throughout the trial and impaired his impartiality and swayed his judgment.” 1 We find no basis for the assertion. “ It is well *330 settled in this state that the expressions of opinion uttered by a judge, in what he conceives to be a discharge of his official duties, are not evidence of bias or prejudice.” (Kreling v. Superior Court, 25 Cal.2d 305, 310-311 [ 153 P.2d 734 ].) Conviction in the mind of a judge, based on his ob

11
People v. Newcomergreen
· 1897 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1942–1942
2 sentences

1942(People v. Newcomer, 118 Cal. 263, 271 [ 50 P. 405 ]; People v. Orosco, 73 Cal.App. 580, 598 [ 239 P. 82 ]; People v. Kinoowaki, 39 Cal.App.2d 376 [ 103 P.2d 203 ].) In the case last cited it is said: “The requested instruction was applicable to the testimony given by the witnesses for the defense and in view of the marked conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses, it cannot be held that defendants were not prejudiced by the failure of the court to give it.” That is the precise effect in the present case.

1942(People v. Newcomer, 118 Cal. 263, 271 [ 50 P. 405 ]; People v. Orosco, 73 Cal.App. 580, 598 [ 239 P. 82 ]; People v. Kinoowaki, 39 Cal.App.2d 376 [ 103 P.2d 203 ].) In the case last cited it is said: “The requested instruction was applicable to the testimony given by the witnesses for the defense and in view of the marked conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses, it cannot be held that defendants were not prejudiced by the failure of the court to give it.” That is the precise effect in the present case.

11
People v. Oroscogreen
calctapp · 1925 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1942–1942
2 sentences

1942(People v. Newcomer, 118 Cal. 263, 271 [ 50 P. 405 ]; People v. Orosco, 73 Cal.App. 580, 598 [ 239 P. 82 ]; People v. Kinoowaki, 39 Cal.App.2d 376 [ 103 P.2d 203 ].) In the case last cited it is said: “The requested instruction was applicable to the testimony given by the witnesses for the defense and in view of the marked conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses, it cannot be held that defendants were not prejudiced by the failure of the court to give it.” That is the precise effect in the present case.

1942(People v. Newcomer, 118 Cal. 263, 271 [ 50 P. 405 ]; People v. Orosco, 73 Cal.App. 580, 598 [ 239 P. 82 ]; People v. Kinoowaki, 39 Cal.App.2d 376 [ 103 P.2d 203 ].) In the case last cited it is said: “The requested instruction was applicable to the testimony given by the witnesses for the defense and in view of the marked conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses, it cannot be held that defendants were not prejudiced by the failure of the court to give it.” That is the precise effect in the present case.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Sarah M. green
calctapp · 1994
1 sentence

2023As the court observed “the issue before the Court at a .26 is is the child adoptable, not who is going to adopt the child, not who is going to make a promise of visitation about the child.” (See Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1650–1651.) Moreover, the trial court is “vested with wide discretion in determining the relevance of evidence,” but “has no discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.” (People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 681 .) A.R has not shown any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, let alone error of constitutional magnitude.

12023–2023
People v. Babbitt green
cal · 1988
1 sentence

2023As the court observed “the issue before the Court at a .26 is is the child adoptable, not who is going to adopt the child, not who is going to make a promise of visitation about the child.” (See Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1650–1651.) Moreover, the trial court is “vested with wide discretion in determining the relevance of evidence,” but “has no discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.” (People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 681 .) A.R has not shown any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, let alone error of constitutional magnitude.

12023–2023
People v. Arreola green
cal · 1994
1 sentence

2023(See Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 1159−1160.) Instead, the trial court found that the hearsay statements 7 were reliable and the hearsay nature of the evidence went to its weight, not its admissibility.

12023–2023
People v. Sturm green
cal · 2006
1 sentence

2013(People v. Sturm, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1244 .) It follows 10 that Illingworth‟s related claim of ineffective assistance for failure to object to the trial court‟s questioning of witnesses is also meritless.

12013–2013
Wood v. Georgia green
scotus · 1981
1 sentence

2008(Wood, supra, 450 U.S. at p. 272 .) When the allegation of juror misconduct was raised, the possibility of a conflict of interest as to Smith was openly discussed by the court and counsel, with defendant present at the later discussions.

12008–2008
People v. Herrera green
calctapp · 1998
2 sentences

2001We granted review because of a conflict between that decision and the Court of Appeal’s decision in People v. Herrera (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1149 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 531 ].

2001We granted review because of a conflict between that decision and the Court of Appeal’s decision in People v. Herrera (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1149 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 531 ].

12001–2001
Broussard v. Regents of the University of California neutral
calctapp · 1982
1 sentence

1996The lack of an oath in this case did not make this otherwise extensive evidentiary hearing fundamentally unfair or Constitutionally infirm.” (462 F.Supp. at pp. 334-335.) In other words, “the trial court [in Potemra] concluded that, notwithstanding plaintiff’s property interest in his faculty position and the minor administrative burden to administer an oath, the extensive evidentiary hearing provided the necessary due process safeguards.” (Broussard v. Regents of University of California, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 642 , construing Potemra.) As the federal district court recognized in Baker

11996–1996
Baker v. City of Detroit green
mied · 1979
2 sentences

1996The lack of an oath in this case did not make this otherwise extensive evidentiary hearing fundamentally unfair or Constitutionally infirm.” (462 F.Supp. at pp. 334-335.) In other words, “the trial court [in Potemra] concluded that, notwithstanding plaintiff’s property interest in his faculty position and the minor administrative burden to administer an oath, the extensive evidentiary hearing provided the necessary due process safeguards.” (Broussard v. Regents of University of California, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 642 , construing Potemra.) As the federal district court recognized in Baker

1996The lack of an oath in this case did not make this otherwise extensive evidentiary hearing fundamentally unfair or Constitutionally infirm.” (462 F.Supp. at pp. 334-335.) In other words, “the trial court [in Potemra] concluded that, notwithstanding plaintiff’s property interest in his faculty position and the minor administrative burden to administer an oath, the extensive evidentiary hearing provided the necessary due process safeguards.” (Broussard v. Regents of University of California, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 642 , construing Potemra.) As the federal district court recognized in Baker

11996–1996
Williams v. Florida green
scotus · 1970
2 sentences

1991(See New Jersey v. Portash (1979) 440 U.S. 450, 459 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 501, 510 , 99 S.Ct. 1292 ].) In Williams, supra, 399 U.S. 78 , the high court held that discovery of the names and addresses of a defendant's alibi witnesses is not "compelled" self-incrimination, and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment. ( Id. *367 at p. 85 [ 26 L.Ed.2d at p. 452 ].) The court reasoned, "At most, the rule only compelled [defendant] to accelerate the timing of his disclosure, by forcing him to divulge at an earlier date information that the [defendant] from the beginning planned to divulge at trial." (

1991(See New Jersey v. Portash (1979) 440 U.S. 450, 459 [ 59 L.Ed.2d 501, 510 , 99 S.Ct. 1292 ].) In Williams, supra, 399 U.S. 78 , the high court held that discovery of the names and addresses of a defendant's alibi witnesses is not "compelled" self-incrimination, and therefore does not violate the Fifth Amendment. ( Id. *367 at p. 85 [ 26 L.Ed.2d at p. 452 ].) The court reasoned, "At most, the rule only compelled [defendant] to accelerate the timing of his disclosure, by forcing him to divulge at an earlier date information that the [defendant] from the beginning planned to divulge at trial." (

11991–1991
Prudhomme v. Superior Court green
cal · 1970
2 sentences

1979In Prudhomme v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 320 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 466 P.2d 673 ], the Supreme Court held that prosecutorial pretrial discovery of the names, addresses, and anticipated testimony of the witnesses the defense intended to call violated the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution binding upon the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

1979In Prudhomme v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 320 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 129 , 466 P.2d 673 ], the Supreme Court held that prosecutorial pretrial discovery of the names, addresses, and anticipated testimony of the witnesses the defense intended to call violated the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution binding upon the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

11979–1979
In Re Robert Reginald Kilgo green
ca4 · 1973
1 sentence

1977(See In re Kilgo (4th Cir. 1973) 484 F.2d 1215, 1219-1221 .) Use immunity does not extend to answers or statements which the witness does not in good faith understand to be responsive to a question asked.

11977–1977
People v. Misquez green
calctapp · 1957
2 sentences

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

1968(People v. Jacobson, 63 Cal.2d 319, 326 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 515 , 405 P.2d 555 ]; People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 75 [ 251 P.2d 324 ]; People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 [ 234 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545 [ 197 P.2d 12 ]; People v. Scott, 176 Cal.App.2d 458, 489 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 ]; People v. Ogg, 159 Cal.App.2d 38, 47 [323 P.2d 117]; People v. Misquez, 152 Cal.App.2d 471 , 477 *715 [ 313 P.2d 206 ]; People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 177 [ 311 P.2d 117 ].) The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant (People v. Amaya, supra;

11968–1968
People v. Ortiz green
calctapp · 1962
1 sentence

1968In People v. Ortiz, 108 Cal.App.2d 313 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 431 ], which involved the stipulated-to testimony of an expert chemist, we answered a contention similar to that urged here, in the following language (at p. 316) : “Defendant argues in his brief that by his attorney’s stipulation be was denied the right to be confronted by the witnesses at his hearing.

11968–1968
Estate of Bristol v. Young green
cal · 1943
2 sentences

1953The position of the majority here is not only out of harmony with the settled law of this state (see Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221 [ 143 P.2d 689 ]; Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]), but it places an undue burden upon this court--that of deciding issues of fact.

1953The position of the majority here is not only out of harmony with the settled law of this state (see Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221 [ 143 P.2d 689 ]; Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]), but it places an undue burden upon this court--that of deciding issues of fact.

11953–1953
Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. green
cal · 1935
2 sentences

1953The position of the majority here is not only out of harmony with the settled law of this state (see Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221 [ 143 P.2d 689 ]; Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]), but it places an undue burden upon this court--that of deciding issues of fact.

1953The position of the majority here is not only out of harmony with the settled law of this state (see Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221 [ 143 P.2d 689 ]; Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]), but it places an undue burden upon this court--that of deciding issues of fact.

11953–1953
People v. Kinowaki green
calctapp · 1940
2 sentences

1942(People v. Newcomer, 118 Cal. 263, 271 [ 50 P. 405 ]; People v. Orosco, 73 Cal.App. 580, 598 [ 239 P. 82 ]; People v. Kinoowaki, 39 Cal.App.2d 376 [ 103 P.2d 203 ].) In the case last cited it is said: “The requested instruction was applicable to the testimony given by the witnesses for the defense and in view of the marked conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses, it cannot be held that defendants were not prejudiced by the failure of the court to give it.” That is the precise effect in the present case.

1942(People v. Newcomer, 118 Cal. 263, 271 [ 50 P. 405 ]; People v. Orosco, 73 Cal.App. 580, 598 [ 239 P. 82 ]; People v. Kinoowaki, 39 Cal.App.2d 376 [ 103 P.2d 203 ].) In the case last cited it is said: “The requested instruction was applicable to the testimony given by the witnesses for the defense and in view of the marked conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses, it cannot be held that defendants were not prejudiced by the failure of the court to give it.” That is the precise effect in the present case.

11942–1942
People v. Sears neutral
cal · 1897
11920–1920
People v. Shehadey neutral
calctapp · 1910
11920–1920

Where else courts name it

NY 171 (1959–2026) TX 79 (1879–2025) IL 50 (1896–2025) CA 18 (1920–2023) PA 17 (1914–2026) AL 15 (1929–2009) GA 13 (1921–2020) MI 13 (1936–2018) LA 13 (1926–2017) OH 12 (1970–2022) TN 12 (1975–2020) FL 12 (1962–2013) CT 11 (1933–2009) MO 11 (1889–2025) IA 10 (1906–2026) MT 10 (1929–1995) MS 9 (1980–2026) DC 9 (1976–2020) WI 8 (1934–2024) MD 8 (1926–2011) KS 8 (1909–2007) WA 8 (1894–2021) MA 6 (1962–2023) AR 6 (1960–2015) NJ 6 (1949–2020) IN 6 (1895–2016) OK 5 (1912–1969) RI 5 (1917–2010) OR 4 (1893–1994) MN 4 (1948–1993) WV 4 (1892–1991) KY 4 (1946–2017) VA 4 (1923–1998) NC 3 (1985–2006) UT 3 (1988–2019) NE 3 (1911–1928) ME 2 (1976–1977) WY 2 (2010–2016) ND 2 (1896–1990) DE 2 (1989–1992) SC 2 (1912–2019) HI 2 (1980–2008) AZ 2 (1985–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check