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.
15 California opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2017 0 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. Conleygreen2 sentences1971There was evidence that defendant consumed a considerable quantity of beer and hard liquor at the party and was “pretty well intoxicated.” The court rendered the entire Conley instruction on diminished capacity (People v. Conley, 64 Cal.2d 310, 324, fn. 4 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 411 P.2d 911 ]), omitting portions dealing with first degree murder, with which defendant was not charged, and references to mental defect or disease. 1971There was evidence that defendant consumed a considerable quantity of beer and hard liquor at the party and was “pretty well intoxicated.” The court rendered the entire Conley instruction on diminished capacity (People v. Conley, 64 Cal.2d 310, 324, fn. 4 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 411 P.2d 911 ]), omitting portions dealing with first degree murder, with which defendant was not charged, and references to mental defect or disease. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Chapmangreen2 sentences1969This case points up vividly the problems of the trial, judge in applying the ever-expanding law of sua sponte instructions, and amplifies the warning of Justice Friedman in the case of People v. Chapman, 261 Cal.App.2d 149, at p. 174 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 601 ], in which he said: “In People v. Crawford (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 874 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ], we observed that overbroad appellate demands for sua sponte instructions tend to hamper the tactical choices of defense attorneys and put trial judges under pressure to glean legal theories and winnow the evidence for remotely tenable and sophistical inst 1969This case points up vividly the problems of the trial, judge in applying the ever-expanding law of sua sponte instructions, and amplifies the warning of Justice Friedman in the case of People v. Chapman, 261 Cal.App.2d 149, at p. 174 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 601 ], in which he said: “In People v. Crawford (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 874 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ], we observed that overbroad appellate demands for sua sponte instructions tend to hamper the tactical choices of defense attorneys and put trial judges under pressure to glean legal theories and winnow the evidence for remotely tenable and sophistical inst | 2 | 2 |
People v. Sedenogreen2 sentences1975In finding him guilty of first degree murder under the instructions given it therefore did not necessarily determine that he acted with malice aforethought.” (People v. Conley, supra, 64 Cal.2d pp. 322-323.) (See also People v. Sedeno, supra, 10 Cal.3d 703, 723 .) 5 In Poddar and in the present case, the jury was instructed on implied malice in terms of CALJIC Nos. 8.11, 8.31 and 8.77 as those instructions then read. 6 In any event, the failure to give the Conley instruction was prejudicial to appellant whether or not the Poddar rationale is applicable to a theory of express malice. 1975In finding him guilty of first degree murder under the instructions given it therefore did not necessarily determine that he acted with malice aforethought.” (People v. Conley, supra, 64 Cal.2d pp. 322-323.) (See also People v. Sedeno, supra, 10 Cal.3d 703, 723 .) 5 In Poddar and in the present case, the jury was instructed on implied malice in terms of CALJIC Nos. 8.11, 8.31 and 8.77 as those instructions then read. 6 In any event, the failure to give the Conley instruction was prejudicial to appellant whether or not the Poddar rationale is applicable to a theory of express malice. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Castillogreen2 sentences1969The Attorney General, with commendable candor, suggests that the argument should be broadened in the light of People v. Castillo, 70 Cal.2d 264 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 449 P.2d 449 ], to ascertain whether or not instructions should have been given on nonstatutory manslaughter as defined in People v. Conley, 64 Cal.2d 310, 324-325 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 411 P.2d 911 ], The court only gave the abridged version of the Conley instruction concerning diminished capacity, which omitted the nonstat *494 utory manslaughter definitions, and was criticized in Castillo for its inadequacy.. 1969The Attorney General, with commendable candor, suggests that the argument should be broadened in the light of People v. Castillo, 70 Cal.2d 264 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 449 P.2d 449 ], to ascertain whether or not instructions should have been given on nonstatutory manslaughter as defined in People v. Conley, 64 Cal.2d 310, 324-325 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 815 , 411 P.2d 911 ], The court only gave the abridged version of the Conley instruction concerning diminished capacity, which omitted the nonstat *494 utory manslaughter definitions, and was criticized in Castillo for its inadequacy.. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Yanikiangreen2 sentences1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik 1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Superior Courtred2 sentences1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik 1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik | 1 | 1 |
Wainwright v. Arrantgreen2 sentences1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik 1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik | 1 | 1 |
LeBrun v. Cuppgreen2 sentences1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik 1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sirhangreen2 sentences1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik 1984Typically their conduct is characterized by some degree of mental illness by virtue of which they place some purpose or principle above the law and thereby justify disregard of the law.” {People v. Yanikian (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 366, 380-381 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 188 ]; see also People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 725-726 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 497 P.2d 1121 ], cert. den. sub nom., Sirhan v. California (1973) 410 U.S. 947 [ 35 L.Ed.2d 613 , 93 S.Ct. 1382 ], overruled in part on other grounds, Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 593, fn. 7 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ].) Both Yanik | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ketchelgreen2 sentences1973(People v. Ford, supra, 65 Cal.2d 41, 58-59 , and fn. 9; People v. Mosher, supra, 1 Cal.3d 379, 392 ; People v. Ketchel, 71 Cal.2d 635, 641 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 92 , 456 P.2d 660 ].) We pause in our discussion to set forth in the margin the instructions bearing on intoxication and diminished capacity which were given in this case. 11 Defendant proposed, but the trial court refused to *329 give, instructions dealing with deliberate and premeditated murder (CALJIC Nos. 8.20 and 8.30) and with manslaughter (CALJIC Nos. 8.39, 8.40, 8.41, 8.72, 8.73) as well as part of the so-called Conley instruction. 1973(People v. Ford, supra, 65 Cal.2d 41, 58-59 , and fn. 9; People v. Mosher, supra, 1 Cal.3d 379, 392 ; People v. Ketchel, 71 Cal.2d 635, 641 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 92 , 456 P.2d 660 ].) We pause in our discussion to set forth in the margin the instructions bearing on intoxication and diminished capacity which were given in this case. 11 Defendant proposed, but the trial court refused to *329 give, instructions dealing with deliberate and premeditated murder (CALJIC Nos. 8.20 and 8.30) and with manslaughter (CALJIC Nos. 8.39, 8.40, 8.41, 8.72, 8.73) as well as part of the so-called Conley instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Irelandgreen2 sentences1971However, in People v. Ireland (1969) supra, 70 Cal.2d 522, 539, fn. 13 , the court said: “In the circumstances of the instant case this interpretation would have substantially eviscerated the defense, which was based upon principles of diminished capacity. 1971However, in People v. Ireland (1969) supra, 70 Cal.2d 522, 539, fn. 13 , the court said: “In the circumstances of the instant case this interpretation would have substantially eviscerated the defense, which was based upon principles of diminished capacity. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wilsongreen2 sentences1971Code, § 26, subd. 5; People v. Mosher, supra, 1 Cal.3d 379, 391 ; People v. Wilson, 66 Cal.2d 749, 761 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 427 P.2d 820 ].)” (Italics supplied.) We conclude the Conley instruction on involuntary manslaughter rendered in the instant case properly and adequately covered the defense of diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication. 1971Code, § 26, subd. 5; People v. Mosher, supra, 1 Cal.3d 379, 391 ; People v. Wilson, 66 Cal.2d 749, 761 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 427 P.2d 820 ].)” (Italics supplied.) We conclude the Conley instruction on involuntary manslaughter rendered in the instant case properly and adequately covered the defense of diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watersgreen2 sentences1969(See People v. Waters, 266 Cal.App.2d 116, 121 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 863 ], where it was found to be reversible error not to give thé Conley instruction where “the evidence establishes that defendant was to some extent intoxicated at the time the crime occurred. ”) [ Italics added. ] The trial court did give an instruction on the significance of diminished capacity in reducing first degree murder to second degree murder and murder to voluntary statutory manslaughter. 1969(See People v. Waters, 266 Cal.App.2d 116, 121 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 863 ], where it was found to be reversible error not to give thé Conley instruction where “the evidence establishes that defendant was to some extent intoxicated at the time the crime occurred. ”) [ Italics added. ] The trial court did give an instruction on the significance of diminished capacity in reducing first degree murder to second degree murder and murder to voluntary statutory manslaughter. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sieversgreen2 sentences1968(People v. Sievers, 255 Cal.App.2d 34, 37 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 841 ].) There is no need for such an instruction superimposed upon the Conley instruction framed by the Supreme Court. 1968(People v. Sievers, 255 Cal.App.2d 34, 37 [ 62 Cal.Rptr. 841 ].) There is no need for such an instruction superimposed upon the Conley instruction framed by the Supreme Court. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Manzogreen2 sentences1967In People v. Manzo, 9 Cal.2d 594, 598 [ 71 P.2d 119 ], the court said: “If there was sufficient evidence in the case upon which the jury might have returned a verdict of manslaughter, an instruction defining it should have been given even if not offered by the defendant. 1967In People v. Manzo, 9 Cal.2d 594, 598 [ 71 P.2d 119 ], the court said: “If there was sufficient evidence in the case upon which the jury might have returned a verdict of manslaughter, an instruction defining it should have been given even if not offered by the defendant. | 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. Mosher
green
2 sentences1973(People v. Ford, supra, 65 Cal.2d 41, 58-59 , and fn. 9; People v. Mosher, supra, 1 Cal.3d 379, 392 ; People v. Ketchel, 71 Cal.2d 635, 641 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 92 , 456 P.2d 660 ].) We pause in our discussion to set forth in the margin the instructions bearing on intoxication and diminished capacity which were given in this case. 11 Defendant proposed, but the trial court refused to *329 give, instructions dealing with deliberate and premeditated murder (CALJIC Nos. 8.20 and 8.30) and with manslaughter (CALJIC Nos. 8.39, 8.40, 8.41, 8.72, 8.73) as well as part of the so-called Conley instruction. 1973(People v. Ford, supra, 65 Cal.2d 41, 58-59 , and fn. 9; People v. Mosher, supra, 1 Cal.3d 379, 392 ; People v. Ketchel, 71 Cal.2d 635, 641 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 92 , 456 P.2d 660 ].) We pause in our discussion to set forth in the margin the instructions bearing on intoxication and diminished capacity which were given in this case. 11 Defendant proposed, but the trial court refused to *329 give, instructions dealing with deliberate and premeditated murder (CALJIC Nos. 8.20 and 8.30) and with manslaughter (CALJIC Nos. 8.39, 8.40, 8.41, 8.72, 8.73) as well as part of the so-called Conley instruction. | 3 | 1971–1973 |
People v. Conley
green
2 sentences2017Proposition 64, like Proposition 36, “is not silent on the question of retroactivity.” (Conley, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 657 .) It provides for a procedure analogous to Proposition 36’s procedure “for application of the new lesser punishment to persons who have previously been sentenced.” (Conley, at p. 658; compare Health & Saf. 2016Like the Three Strikes Reform Act (Prop. 36), the Safe Neighborhoods Act (Prop. 47) “is not silent on the question of retroactivity,” and it expressly addresses that question in a statutory provision (see § 1170.18), “the sole purpose of which is to extend the benefits of the Act retroactively.” (Conley, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 657 .) Like section 1170.126, section 1170.18 does not distinguish between inmates serving final sentences and those serving nonfinal sentences, “entitling both categories of prisoners to petition courts for recall of sentence . . . .” ( Conley, supra, at p. 657 .) The | 2 | 2016–2017 |
People v. Ford
green
2 sentences1973(People v. Ford, supra, 65 Cal.2d 41, 58-59 , and fn. 9; People v. Mosher, supra, 1 Cal.3d 379, 392 ; People v. Ketchel, 71 Cal.2d 635, 641 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 92 , 456 P.2d 660 ].) We pause in our discussion to set forth in the margin the instructions bearing on intoxication and diminished capacity which were given in this case. 11 Defendant proposed, but the trial court refused to *329 give, instructions dealing with deliberate and premeditated murder (CALJIC Nos. 8.20 and 8.30) and with manslaughter (CALJIC Nos. 8.39, 8.40, 8.41, 8.72, 8.73) as well as part of the so-called Conley instruction. 1973(People v. Ford, supra, 65 Cal.2d 41, 58-59 , and fn. 9; People v. Mosher, supra, 1 Cal.3d 379, 392 ; People v. Ketchel, 71 Cal.2d 635, 641 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 92 , 456 P.2d 660 ].) We pause in our discussion to set forth in the margin the instructions bearing on intoxication and diminished capacity which were given in this case. 11 Defendant proposed, but the trial court refused to *329 give, instructions dealing with deliberate and premeditated murder (CALJIC Nos. 8.20 and 8.30) and with manslaughter (CALJIC Nos. 8.39, 8.40, 8.41, 8.72, 8.73) as well as part of the so-called Conley instruction. | 2 | 1971–1973 |
Conley v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
green
1 sentence2014As Conley explained, employees “do in fact receive all of the paid time off they have earned—they must simply use that accrued vacation time to make up for partial-day absences.” ( Conley, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 270 .) Thus the employer’s policy requiring that vacation time be used for partial-day absences “neither imposes a forfeiture nor operates to prevent vacation pay from vesting as it is earned. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Asher
green
1 sentence1973(People v. Asher, 273 Cal.App.2d 876 at p. 899 .) The court, however, then did not hold that no Conley instruction was required but rather ruled that “even though it were error” to fail to give the instruction the failure was not prejudicial. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
People v. Dewberry
green
2 sentences1971The jurors were instructed that “[i]n order to return a verdict it is necessary that all twelve of the jurors agree to the decision.” The deficiency is minor, but is one more item in the accumulation of problems. 14 As part of CALJIC 305.1 (New), the jurors were instructed that if there was a reasonable doubt whether the defendant did harbor malice, they could not find him guilty of either first or second degree murder; and in the Conley instruction they were instructed that malice was essential for either degree of murder, and so if they had a reasonable doubt whether there was malice, they c 1971The jurors were instructed that “[i]n order to return a verdict it is necessary that all twelve of the jurors agree to the decision.” The deficiency is minor, but is one more item in the accumulation of problems. 14 As part of CALJIC 305.1 (New), the jurors were instructed that if there was a reasonable doubt whether the defendant did harbor malice, they could not find him guilty of either first or second degree murder; and in the Conley instruction they were instructed that malice was essential for either degree of murder, and so if they had a reasonable doubt whether there was malice, they c | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Graham
green
2 sentences1971(People v. Graham, supra, 71 Cal.2d 303, 315-316 ; People v. Castillo, 70 Cal.2d 264, 269-270 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 449 P.2d 449 ]; People v. Conley, supra, 64 Cal.2d 310, 323 .) But under cases antedating Mosher , a defendant asserting the defense of diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication was entitled to a supplemental instruction on involuntary manslaughter only where there was evidence that he was intoxicated to the degree of unconsciousness. 1971(People v. Graham, supra, 71 Cal.2d 303, 315-316 ; People v. Castillo, 70 Cal.2d 264, 269-270 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 385 , 449 P.2d 449 ]; People v. Conley, supra, 64 Cal.2d 310, 323 .) But under cases antedating Mosher , a defendant asserting the defense of diminished capacity due to voluntary intoxication was entitled to a supplemental instruction on involuntary manslaughter only where there was evidence that he was intoxicated to the degree of unconsciousness. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v. Crawford
green
2 sentences1969This case points up vividly the problems of the trial, judge in applying the ever-expanding law of sua sponte instructions, and amplifies the warning of Justice Friedman in the case of People v. Chapman, 261 Cal.App.2d 149, at p. 174 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 601 ], in which he said: “In People v. Crawford (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 874 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ], we observed that overbroad appellate demands for sua sponte instructions tend to hamper the tactical choices of defense attorneys and put trial judges under pressure to glean legal theories and winnow the evidence for remotely tenable and sophistical inst 1969This case points up vividly the problems of the trial, judge in applying the ever-expanding law of sua sponte instructions, and amplifies the warning of Justice Friedman in the case of People v. Chapman, 261 Cal.App.2d 149, at p. 174 [ 67 Cal.Rptr. 601 ], in which he said: “In People v. Crawford (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 874 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ], we observed that overbroad appellate demands for sua sponte instructions tend to hamper the tactical choices of defense attorneys and put trial judges under pressure to glean legal theories and winnow the evidence for remotely tenable and sophistical inst | 1 | 1969–1969 |
People v. Baglin
green
2 sentences1969Code, § 189) constitutes second degree murder. [Citation.]” (65 Cal.2d at pp. 57-58.) Defendant seeks to come within the provisions of the caveat contained in a footnote in Ford reading as follows: “Of course, pursuant to the Conley rule, manslaughter instructions must be given notwithstanding the involvement of the felony-murder rule in those cases where there is any factual dispute as to whether the homicide was committed during the perpetration of a relevant felony or where the issue of diminished capacity or intoxication is raised as a defense to the felony charge as well as to the murder 1969Code, § 189) constitutes second degree murder. [Citation.]” (65 Cal.2d at pp. 57-58.) Defendant seeks to come within the provisions of the caveat contained in a footnote in Ford reading as follows: “Of course, pursuant to the Conley rule, manslaughter instructions must be given notwithstanding the involvement of the felony-murder rule in those cases where there is any factual dispute as to whether the homicide was committed during the perpetration of a relevant felony or where the issue of diminished capacity or intoxication is raised as a defense to the felony charge as well as to the murder | 1 | 1969–1969 |
People v. Modesto
green
2 sentences1967People v. Jeter, 60 Cal.2d 671 . 676 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 388 P.2d 355 ]; People v. Modesto, 59 Cal.2d *920 722 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 382 P.2d 33 ]; People v. Miller, 57 Cal.2d 821 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 372 P.2d 297 ].) We note several factual distinctions between the Conley case and the case at bench: First, Conley’s claim of diminished capacity was supported by his own testimony that he could not remember, by a blood alcohol test, and by the opinion of a psychologist; appellant here relies only upon the testimony of an accomplice. 1967People v. Jeter, 60 Cal.2d 671 . 676 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 388 P.2d 355 ]; People v. Modesto, 59 Cal.2d *920 722 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 382 P.2d 33 ]; People v. Miller, 57 Cal.2d 821 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 372 P.2d 297 ].) We note several factual distinctions between the Conley case and the case at bench: First, Conley’s claim of diminished capacity was supported by his own testimony that he could not remember, by a blood alcohol test, and by the opinion of a psychologist; appellant here relies only upon the testimony of an accomplice. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Hankins v. State
neutral
2 sentences1967In People v. Manzo, 9 Cal.2d 594, 598 [ 71 P.2d 119 ], the court said: “If there was sufficient evidence in the case upon which the jury might have returned a verdict of manslaughter, an instruction defining it should have been given even if not offered by the defendant. 1967In People v. Manzo, 9 Cal.2d 594, 598 [ 71 P.2d 119 ], the court said: “If there was sufficient evidence in the case upon which the jury might have returned a verdict of manslaughter, an instruction defining it should have been given even if not offered by the defendant. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
People v. Jeter
green
2 sentences1967People v. Jeter, 60 Cal.2d 671 . 676 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 388 P.2d 355 ]; People v. Modesto, 59 Cal.2d *920 722 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 382 P.2d 33 ]; People v. Miller, 57 Cal.2d 821 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 372 P.2d 297 ].) We note several factual distinctions between the Conley case and the case at bench: First, Conley’s claim of diminished capacity was supported by his own testimony that he could not remember, by a blood alcohol test, and by the opinion of a psychologist; appellant here relies only upon the testimony of an accomplice. 1967People v. Jeter, 60 Cal.2d 671 . 676 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 388 P.2d 355 ]; People v. Modesto, 59 Cal.2d *920 722 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 382 P.2d 33 ]; People v. Miller, 57 Cal.2d 821 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 372 P.2d 297 ].) We note several factual distinctions between the Conley case and the case at bench: First, Conley’s claim of diminished capacity was supported by his own testimony that he could not remember, by a blood alcohol test, and by the opinion of a psychologist; appellant here relies only upon the testimony of an accomplice. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
People v. Miller
green
2 sentences1967People v. Jeter, 60 Cal.2d 671 . 676 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 388 P.2d 355 ]; People v. Modesto, 59 Cal.2d *920 722 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 382 P.2d 33 ]; People v. Miller, 57 Cal.2d 821 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 372 P.2d 297 ].) We note several factual distinctions between the Conley case and the case at bench: First, Conley’s claim of diminished capacity was supported by his own testimony that he could not remember, by a blood alcohol test, and by the opinion of a psychologist; appellant here relies only upon the testimony of an accomplice. 1967People v. Jeter, 60 Cal.2d 671 . 676 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 328 , 388 P.2d 355 ]; People v. Modesto, 59 Cal.2d *920 722 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 382 P.2d 33 ]; People v. Miller, 57 Cal.2d 821 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 465 , 372 P.2d 297 ].) We note several factual distinctions between the Conley case and the case at bench: First, Conley’s claim of diminished capacity was supported by his own testimony that he could not remember, by a blood alcohol test, and by the opinion of a psychologist; appellant here relies only upon the testimony of an accomplice. | 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.