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.
20 California opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 7 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. Bolingreen2 sentences2025(People v. Jacobo (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 32, 42 .) We do not reverse on an insufficient evidence claim “unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ ” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331 .) Section 203 provides, “Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem.” (See People v. Santana (2013) 56 Cal.4th 999, 1003 (Sant 2013However, we have made clear that ―[s]uch matters as whether objections should be made and the manner of cross-examination are within counsel‘s discretion and rarely implicate ineffective assistance of counsel.‖ (People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 993 ; see People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 334 .) Defendant points to no exculpatory or impeachment evidence that further examination would have elicited. ― ‗We cannot evaluate alleged deficiencies in counsel‘s representation solely on defendant‘s unsubstantiated speculation.‘ ‖ (Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 334 , quoting People v. Cox | 2 | 3 |
People v. Holagreen2 sentences2024Generally, “[a] postconviction change in the law invalidating a prosecution theory is the equivalent of a trial error because it means the jury was instructed on a legally invalid theory. [Citations.] Moreover, as our high court has explained, the insufficient evidence rule barring retrial is ‘inapplicable’ in a situation where the reversal is based on a postconviction change in the law: ‘The [insufficient evidence] rule achieves its aim— i.e., of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on the same charge—by the device of giving the prosecution 2022(Hola, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 373.) We explained: “A postconviction change in the law invalidating a prosecution theory is the equivalent of a trial error because it means the jury was instructed on a legally invalid theory. [Citations.] Moreover, as our high court has explained, the insufficient evidence rule barring retrial is ‘inapplicable’ in a situation where the reversal is based on a postconviction change in the law: ‘The [insufficient evidence] rule achieves its aim—i.e., of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on the same charge | 2 | 2 |
People v. Chiured2 sentences2024Generally, “[a] postconviction change in the law invalidating a prosecution theory is the equivalent of a trial error because it means the jury was instructed on a legally invalid theory. [Citations.] Moreover, as our high court has explained, the insufficient evidence rule barring retrial is ‘inapplicable’ in a situation where the reversal is based on a postconviction change in the law: ‘The [insufficient evidence] rule achieves its aim— i.e., of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on the same charge—by the device of giving the prosecution 2022(See Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 158 [characterizing the error as instructional error]; Gutierrez, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 857 [same, noting that the court’s instructions allowed the prosecution to convict defendant on a “legally incorrect theory”].) Moreover, as our high court has explained, the insufficient evidence rule barring retrial is “inapplicable” in a situation where the reversal is based on a postconviction change in the law: “The [insufficient evidence] rule achieves its aim— i.e., of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on | 1 | 2 |
People v. Santanagreen1 sentence2025(People v. Jacobo (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 32, 42 .) We do not reverse on an insufficient evidence claim “unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ ” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331 .) Section 203 provides, “Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem.” (See People v. Santana (2013) 56 Cal.4th 999, 1003 (Sant | 1 | 1 |
People v. Shirleyred2 sentences2022(See Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 158 [characterizing the error as instructional error]; Gutierrez, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 857 [same, noting that the court’s instructions allowed the prosecution to convict defendant on a “legally incorrect theory”].) Moreover, as our high court has explained, the insufficient evidence rule barring retrial is “inapplicable” in a situation where the reversal is based on a postconviction change in the law: “The [insufficient evidence] rule achieves its aim— i.e., of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on 2022(See Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 158 [characterizing the error as instructional error]; Gutierrez, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 857 [same, noting that the court’s instructions allowed the prosecution to convict defendant on a “legally incorrect theory”].) Moreover, as our high court has explained, the insufficient evidence rule barring retrial is “inapplicable” in a situation where the reversal is based on a postconviction change in the law: “The [insufficient evidence] rule achieves its aim— i.e., of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2022(See Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 158 [characterizing the error as instructional error]; Gutierrez, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 857 [same, noting that the court’s instructions allowed the prosecution to convict defendant on a “legally incorrect theory”].) Moreover, as our high court has explained, the insufficient evidence rule barring retrial is “inapplicable” in a situation where the reversal is based on a postconviction change in the law: “The [insufficient evidence] rule achieves its aim— i.e., of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on 2022(See Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 158 [characterizing the error as instructional error]; Gutierrez, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 857 [same, noting that the court’s instructions allowed the prosecution to convict defendant on a “legally incorrect theory”].) Moreover, as our high court has explained, the insufficient evidence rule barring retrial is “inapplicable” in a situation where the reversal is based on a postconviction change in the law: “The [insufficient evidence] rule achieves its aim— i.e., of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fieldergreen1 sentence2016(People v. Fielder (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1232 (Fielder).) “The test on appeal is simply whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
Santa Cruz County Human Services Department v. J.P.green1 sentence2014(In re K.C. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 323, 329 [“If, at the 12-month hearing, [the department] does not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it has provided reasonable services to the parent, family reunification services must be extended to the end of the 18-month period.”].) The parent’s insufficient evidence challenge to a mandatory finding such as this is not forfeited by failure to object below. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ernstgreen2 sentences2013(But cf. People v. Ernst (1994) 8 Cal.4th 441, 446-447 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 881 P.2d 298 ] [prosecution may not exercise its right to jury trial over defendant’s plea of guilty].) As noted in the text, the strategy chosen by counsel avoided this pitfall, kept open the possibility the trial court would find the preliminary hearing evidence unpersuasive, and, if the court failed to do so, preserved defendant’s right to raise an insufficient-evidence claim on appeal. 2013(But cf. People v. Ernst (1994) 8 Cal.4th 441, 446-447 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 , 881 P.2d 298 ] [prosecution may not exercise its right to jury trial over defendant’s plea of guilty].) As noted in the text, the strategy chosen by counsel avoided this pitfall, kept open the possibility the trial court would find the preliminary hearing evidence unpersuasive, and, if the court failed to do so, preserved defendant’s right to raise an insufficient-evidence claim on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Huntgreen2 sentences2013(See maj. opn., ante, at p. 1088.) Informing the jury of the officer’s special expertise in medical marijuana use would have added force and weight to his opinion and would have greatly reduced the likelihood of an insufficient evidence claim under Hunt, supra, 4 Cal.3d 231. 2013(See maj. opn., ante, at p. 11.) Informing the jury of the officer‟s special expertise in medical marijuana use would have added force and weight to his opinion and would have greatly reduced the likelihood of an insufficient evidence claim under Hunt, supra, 4 Cal.3d 231 . | 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. Elliot
green
2 sentences2015(People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466 .) We presume the existence of every fact supporting the judgment that the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence, and a judgment will be reversed only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict under any hypothesis. 2015(People v. Elliot (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466 .) We presume the existence of every fact supporting the judgment that the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence, and a judgment will be reversed only if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict under any hypothesis. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Cox
red
2 sentences2013However, we have made clear that ―[s]uch matters as whether objections should be made and the manner of cross-examination are within counsel‘s discretion and rarely implicate ineffective assistance of counsel.‖ (People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 993 ; see People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 334 .) Defendant points to no exculpatory or impeachment evidence that further examination would have elicited. ― ‗We cannot evaluate alleged deficiencies in counsel‘s representation solely on defendant‘s unsubstantiated speculation.‘ ‖ (Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 334 , quoting People v. Cox 2013However, we have made clear that ―[s]uch matters as whether objections should be made and the manner of cross-examination are within counsel‘s discretion and rarely implicate ineffective assistance of counsel.‖ (People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 993 ; see People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 334 .) Defendant points to no exculpatory or impeachment evidence that further examination would have elicited. ― ‗We cannot evaluate alleged deficiencies in counsel‘s representation solely on defendant‘s unsubstantiated speculation.‘ ‖ (Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 334 , quoting People v. Cox | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Pacheco
red
2 sentences2013Defendant argues that he can raise the issue on appeal for the first time because the determination of such fees presents an insufficient evidence claim that cannot be forfeited, citing to People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392 , 1397- 1401 (Pacheco). 2013Defendant argues that he can raise the issue on appeal for the first time because the determination of such fees presents an insufficient evidence claim that cannot be forfeited, citing to People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392 , 1397- 1401 (Pacheco). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. McDermott
green
2 sentences2013However, we have made clear that ―[s]uch matters as whether objections should be made and the manner of cross-examination are within counsel‘s discretion and rarely implicate ineffective assistance of counsel.‖ (People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 993 ; see People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 334 .) Defendant points to no exculpatory or impeachment evidence that further examination would have elicited. ― ‗We cannot evaluate alleged deficiencies in counsel‘s representation solely on defendant‘s unsubstantiated speculation.‘ ‖ (Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 334 , quoting People v. Cox 2013However, we have made clear that ―[s]uch matters as whether objections should be made and the manner of cross-examination are within counsel‘s discretion and rarely implicate ineffective assistance of counsel.‖ (People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 993 ; see People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 334 .) Defendant points to no exculpatory or impeachment evidence that further examination would have elicited. ― ‗We cannot evaluate alleged deficiencies in counsel‘s representation solely on defendant‘s unsubstantiated speculation.‘ ‖ (Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 334 , quoting People v. Cox | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Holmes, McClain & Newborn
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 780 .) 10 Here, Hansen testified that he initially declined Shryack’s requests for a ride and asked Shryack to leave. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
ALVAKADO v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2026(Alvarado v. Superior Court (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 993, 1003 .) We review an insufficient evidence claim under the substantial evidence standard. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Jacobo
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Jacobo (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 32, 42 .) We do not reverse on an insufficient evidence claim “unless it appears ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ ” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331 .) Section 203 provides, “Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures, or renders it useless, or cuts or disables the tongue, or puts out an eye, or slits the nose, ear, or lip, is guilty of mayhem.” (See People v. Santana (2013) 56 Cal.4th 999, 1003 (Sant | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lopez
red
2 sentences2022In Lopez, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th 327 , the Court of Appeal considered an insufficient evidence challenge to a jury’s gang enhancements findings in light of the recent amendments to section 186.22. 2022In Lopez, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th 327 , the Court of Appeal considered an insufficient evidence challenge to a jury’s gang enhancements findings in light of the recent amendments to section 186.22. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Bland
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 326-327, 329-330.) “ ‘The intent is concurrent . . . when the nature and scope of the attack, while directed at a primary victim, are such that we can conclude the perpetrator intended to ensure harm to the primary victim by harming everyone in that victim’s vicinity.’ ” (Id. at p. 330.) 1 Respondent also argues Canizales is not retroactive and the claim is procedurally barred because: (a) it is an insufficient evidence claim; and (b) we have already ruled on this exact issue. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Delgado
red
1 sentence2016(People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1065 .) When an insufficient evidence challenge is raised on appeal, we review for substantial evidence. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Neal
green
1 sentence2016(Id. at p. 356.) Defendant counters that sufficiency of the evidence issues are never waived, citing People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114 (Neal), which stated that forfeiture would not apply to an insufficient evidence challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 577 .) Thus, we cannot resolve an insufficient evidence challenge without a full record. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
The People v. Dowl
green
1 sentence2014But even assuming the contention is properly before us as an insufficient evidence claim (see People v. Dowl (2013) 57 Cal.4th 1079, 1089 ), it is unpersuasive. 4 Defendant notes that the prosecutor amended the information to conform to proof during trial as to counts five and six, but not as to count three. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.