metal bar (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

metal bar in California

15 California opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2023 3 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 (6)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Deanegreen
calctapp · 1968 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010When first known and used, the weapon was commonly made of brass, but [it] is now made of steel, platinum or other heavy metal, as well as brass, but it retains the name of brass knuckles, no matter of what material it is made.’ “The Britannica World Language Dictionary (1958 ed.): ‘A device of metal, fitting over the knuckles, used as a protection for them in striking and to add force to the blow.’ “Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed.): ‘Linked metal rings or a metal bar with holes for the fingers, worn for rough fighting.’ “The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (

2010When first known and used, the weapon was commonly made of brass, but [it] is now made of steel, platinum or other heavy metal, as well as brass, but it retains the name of brass knuckles, no matter of what material it is made.' "The Britannica World Language Dictionary (1958 ed.): `A device of metal, fitting over the knuckles, used as a protection for them in striking and to add force to the blow.' "Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed.): `Linked metal rings or a metal bar with holes for the fingers, worn for rough fighting.' "The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (

22
Romero-Perez v. Commonwealthgreen
kyctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021(See, e.g., Romero-Perez v. Commonwealth, supra, 492 S.W.3d at p. 907 [although “a witness’ immigration status could trigger negative sentiments in the minds of some jurors,” “a criminal defendant’s right to effectively probe into a matter directly bearing on witness credibility and bias must trump any prejudice that would result from the jury’s knowledge of the victim’s immigration status”].) Here, however, where the inference of bias had weak support in relation to this prejudice, we see no abuse of discretion in excluding the evidence. d.

11
People v. Davisgreen
cal · 1995 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995(See Davis, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 511.) The same evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant shared Joey’s intent and plan to kill Juan, and thus was liable, as an aider and abettor, for Juan’s murder.

1995(See Davis, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 511.) The same evidence supports the trial court's finding that defendant shared Joey's intent and plan to kill Juan, and thus was liable, as an aider and abettor, for Juan's murder. ( Beeman, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 560 .) The killing of Juan ended after a prolonged knife attack and beating from which Juan attempted to defend himself.

11
People v. Friersongreen
cal · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983
2 sentences

1983Its gruesome character can be inferred from the fact that it depicts the battered body of the victim, who was beaten to death with a metal bar. (22a) "The admission of photographs of victims lies primarily within the discretion of the trial judge who determines whether their probative value is outweighed by their prejudicial effect. [Citations.] Photographs which disclose the manner in which a victim was wounded are `relevant on the issues of malice [citations] and aggravation of the crime and the penalty [citations].'" ( People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 171 [ 158 Cal. Rptr. 281 , 599

1983Its gruesome character can be inferred from the fact that it depicts the battered body of the victim, who was beaten to death with a metal bar. (22a) "The admission of photographs of victims lies primarily within the discretion of the trial judge who determines whether their probative value is outweighed by their prejudicial effect. [Citations.] Photographs which disclose the manner in which a victim was wounded are `relevant on the issues of malice [citations] and aggravation of the crime and the penalty [citations].'" ( People v. Frierson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 142, 171 [ 158 Cal. Rptr. 281 , 599

11
People v. Tobingreen
calctapp · 1956 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971(People v. Tobin, 143 Cal.App.2d 1, 9, 10 [ 299 P.2d 353 ].) Tobin involved a meat cleaver, which, again unlike the weapon in the *203 instant case, was admitted into evidence.

1971(People v. Tobin, 143 Cal.App.2d 1, 9, 10 [ 299 P.2d 353 ].) Tobin involved a meat cleaver, which, again unlike the weapon in the *203 instant case, was admitted into evidence.

11
Bakurjian v. Pughgreen
calctapp · 1935 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1954–1954
2 sentences

1954(See Bakurjian v. Pugh, 4 Cal.App.2d 450, 454 [ 41 P.2d 175 ].) *93 Plaintiff testified that on March 25, 1949, he was driving a tractor with a semitrailer (referred to as a truck); he was proceeding north on Alameda Street, and while he was shifting gears the gears stuck; he coasted over to the curb, and came to a stop against the curb and about 200 feet south of Olympic Boulevard; previously when gears on other trucks were that way, he found that by getting under the truck he could pry the shifting lever back into neutral position with a metal bar; he thought there was a bar with the tools i

1954(See Bakurjian v. Pugh, 4 Cal.App.2d 450, 454 [ 41 P.2d 175 ].) *93 Plaintiff testified that on March 25, 1949, he was driving a tractor with a semitrailer (referred to as a truck); he was proceeding north on Alameda Street, and while he was shifting gears the gears stuck; he coasted over to the curb, and came to a stop against the curb and about 200 feet south of Olympic Boulevard; previously when gears on other trucks were that way, he found that by getting under the truck he could pry the shifting lever back into neutral position with a metal bar; he thought there was a bar with the tools i

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 (14)

CaseCitedYears
Campbell v. General Motors Corp. green
cal · 1982
1 sentence

2023In Campbell, the plaintiff was a 62-year-old bus passenger who sat in “the first forward-facing single seat on the right side of the bus.” ( Campbell, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 115–116.) Most seats had a metal bar in front of the passenger at shoulder level that was attached to the back of the seat just in front of the passenger.

12023–2023
People v. Lee green
calctapp · 1937
1 sentence

2022(People v. Lee (1937) 23 Cal.App.2d 168, 170 .) Whether an object was used as a deadly weapon depends on how the defendant actually used the object and not how it could have been used.

12022–2022
People v. Watson green
cal · 1956
1 sentence

2015However, evidence that someone else hit the victim did not 12 tend to show that defendant was guilty of a lesser included offense; it tended to show that he was not guilty at all.4 Separately and alternatively, the asserted error was harmless. “[A]n erroneous failure to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is subject to harmless error analysis under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [5] . . . [E]vidence sufficient to warrant an instruction on a lesser included offense does not necessarily amount to evidence sufficient to create a reasonable probability of a different outcome had

12015–2015
People v. Banks green
cal · 2014
1 sentence

2015However, evidence that someone else hit the victim did not 12 tend to show that defendant was guilty of a lesser included offense; it tended to show that he was not guilty at all.4 Separately and alternatively, the asserted error was harmless. “[A]n erroneous failure to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is subject to harmless error analysis under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [5] . . . [E]vidence sufficient to warrant an instruction on a lesser included offense does not necessarily amount to evidence sufficient to create a reasonable probability of a different outcome had

12015–2015
People v. Bradford green
cal · 1997
1 sentence

2014(People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1055 .) Shortly thereafter, defendant told police that he knew Hurtado and their relationship was “cool.” Though the officer told him that a metal bar had been found and he did not know whether this was “a self-defense type of incident,” defendant never indicated that he had acted in self-defense.

12014–2014
People v. Ewoldt green
cal · 1994
1 sentence

2014Consequently, the evidence tended in reason to prove the disputed fact that defendant intended to injure Holmstead and was highly probative of that fact because the jury could reasonably infer that defendant “ ‘ “probably harbor[ed] the same intent in each instance.” [Citation.]’ ” (Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 402 ; see also § 210.) For the same reasons, the evidence was highly probative of motive and negated defendant’s claim of self-defense.

12014–2014
People v. Beeman green
cal · 1984
1 sentence

1995(See Davis, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 511.) The same evidence supports the trial court's finding that defendant shared Joey's intent and plan to kill Juan, and thus was liable, as an aider and abettor, for Juan's murder. ( Beeman, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 560 .) The killing of Juan ended after a prolonged knife attack and beating from which Juan attempted to defend himself.

11995–1995
People v. Jackson green
cal · 1980
2 sentences

1983Defendant asks us to reconsider our decision in People v. Jackson, supra, 28 Cal.3d 264 , holding the 1977 death penalty legislation constitutional.

1983Defendant asks us to reconsider our decision in People v. Jackson, supra, 28 Cal.3d 264 , holding the 1977 death penalty legislation constitutional.

11983–1983
Lovelady v. State green
alactapp · 1917
2 sentences

1968When first known and used, the weapon was commonly made of brass, but it is now made of steel, platinum or other heavy metal, as well as brass, but it retains the name of brass knuckles, no matter of what material it is made. ’ ’ The Britanniea World Language Dictionary (1958 ed.) : “A device of metal, fitting over the knuckles, used as a protection for them in striking and to add force to the blow. ’ ’ Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed.); “Linked metal rings or a metal bar with holes for the fingers, worn for rough fighting. ’ ’ The Random House Dictionary of the English Langu

1968When first known and used, the weapon was commonly made of brass, but it is now made of steel, platinum or other heavy metal, as well as brass, but it retains the name of brass knuckles, no matter of what material it is made. ’ ’ The Britanniea World Language Dictionary (1958 ed.) : “A device of metal, fitting over the knuckles, used as a protection for them in striking and to add force to the blow. ’ ’ Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed.); “Linked metal rings or a metal bar with holes for the fingers, worn for rough fighting. ’ ’ The Random House Dictionary of the English Langu

11968–1968
Terry v. State neutral
· 1887
1 sentence

1968When first known and used, the weapon was commonly made of brass, but it is now made of steel, platinum or other heavy metal, as well as brass, but it retains the name of brass knuckles, no matter of what material it is made. ’ ’ The Britanniea World Language Dictionary (1958 ed.) : “A device of metal, fitting over the knuckles, used as a protection for them in striking and to add force to the blow. ’ ’ Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed.); “Linked metal rings or a metal bar with holes for the fingers, worn for rough fighting. ’ ’ The Random House Dictionary of the English Langu

11968–1968
Mills v. State neutral
· 1896
2 sentences

1968When first known and used, the weapon was commonly made of brass, but it is now made of steel, platinum or other heavy metal, as well as brass, but it retains the name of brass knuckles, no matter of what material it is made. ’ ’ The Britanniea World Language Dictionary (1958 ed.) : “A device of metal, fitting over the knuckles, used as a protection for them in striking and to add force to the blow. ’ ’ Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed.); “Linked metal rings or a metal bar with holes for the fingers, worn for rough fighting. ’ ’ The Random House Dictionary of the English Langu

1968When first known and used, the weapon was commonly made of brass, but it is now made of steel, platinum or other heavy metal, as well as brass, but it retains the name of brass knuckles, no matter of what material it is made. ’ ’ The Britanniea World Language Dictionary (1958 ed.) : “A device of metal, fitting over the knuckles, used as a protection for them in striking and to add force to the blow. ’ ’ Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed.); “Linked metal rings or a metal bar with holes for the fingers, worn for rough fighting. ’ ’ The Random House Dictionary of the English Langu

11968–1968
People v. Graham green
calctapp · 1958
2 sentences

1963(People v. White, 174 Cal.App.2d 278 [ 344 P.2d 413 ]; People v. Graham, 156 Cal.App.2d 525 [ 319 P.2d 677 ].) An affirmative finding is implicit in the finding of guilt.

1963(People v. White, 174 Cal.App.2d 278 [ 344 P.2d 413 ]; People v. Graham, 156 Cal.App.2d 525 [ 319 P.2d 677 ].) An affirmative finding is implicit in the finding of guilt.

11963–1963
People v. White green
calctapp · 1959
2 sentences

1963(People v. White, 174 Cal.App.2d 278 [ 344 P.2d 413 ]; People v. Graham, 156 Cal.App.2d 525 [ 319 P.2d 677 ].) An affirmative finding is implicit in the finding of guilt.

1963(People v. White, 174 Cal.App.2d 278 [ 344 P.2d 413 ]; People v. Graham, 156 Cal.App.2d 525 [ 319 P.2d 677 ].) An affirmative finding is implicit in the finding of guilt.

11963–1963
Minter v. San Diego Consolidated Gas & Electric Co. green
cal · 1919
1 sentence

1929Thus, in Minter v. San Diego Consolidated Gas etc. Co., 180 Cal. 723 [ 182 Pac. 749 , 750], it is said: “If, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, an ordinarily prudent person would have had reasonable ground to suspect that the wires so placed would cause injury, the plaintiff can be said to have proved a breach of duty.” We do not think that the respondent here can be said to have had reasonable ground to suspect that someone would be apt to make contact with its wire by means of a metal bar extended from a fifth-story window of a neighboring

11929–1929

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 12022.7 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 15 (1929–2023) NY 8 (1997–2016) IL 7 (1971–2016) GA 4 (1997–2014) TX 4 (1992–2026) MO 4 (1947–2014) OH 3 (2004–2017) AL 2 (2013–2017) DE 2 (2020–2021)

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