kind error in California

1976He notes that not allowing him to cross-examine them in that fashion “permitted the defense experts to testify that the working conditions were safe and met the standard of care in the construction industry when they knew that there were two direct violations of Safety Orders.” In support of his position, plaintiff cites Hope v. Arrowhead & Puritas Waters, Inc., 174 Cal.App.2d 222, 230 [ 344 P.2d 428 ]: “Once an expert offers his opinion ... he exposes himself to the kind of inquiry which ordinarily would have no place in the cross-examination of a *858 factual witness.

1976He notes that not allowing him to cross-examine them in that fashion “permitted the defense experts to testify that the working conditions were safe and met the standard of care in the construction industry when they knew that there were two direct violations of Safety Orders.” In support of his position, plaintiff cites Hope v. Arrowhead & Puritas Waters, Inc., 174 Cal.App.2d 222, 230 [ 344 P.2d 428 ]: “Once an expert offers his opinion ... he exposes himself to the kind of inquiry which ordinarily would have no place in the cross-examination of a *858 factual witness.

2022Rules Crim.Proc., rule 52(b), 18 U.S.C. [the “presence of alternate jurors during jury deliberations is not the kind of error that ‘affect[s] substantial rights’ independent of its prejudicial impact”].) “[I]f the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis.” (Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 579 .)39 “ ‘Under article VI, section 13 of our state Constitution, trial error does not merit reversal of a judgment unless “the error complained of has resulted in a m

2022Rules Crim.Proc., rule 52(b), 18 U.S.C. [the “presence of alternate jurors during jury deliberations is not the kind of error that ‘affect[s] substantial rights’ independent of its prejudicial impact”].) “[I]f the defendant had counsel and was tried by an impartial adjudicator, there is a strong presumption that any other errors that may have occurred are subject to harmless-error analysis.” (Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570, 579 .)39 “ ‘Under article VI, section 13 of our state Constitution, trial error does not merit reversal of a judgment unless “the error complained of has resulted in a m

1988In Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987) 481 U.S. 393, 399 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 347, 353 , 107 S.Ct. 1821, 1824 ], the United States Supreme Court suggested that the kind of error under consideration here may be held nonprejudicial only when “it had no effect on the jury . . . .” (Cf. Satterwhite v. Texas (1988) 486 U.S. _ , _-_ [ 100 L.Ed.2d 284, 108 , S. Ct. 1792] (holding that errors of federal constitutional dimension occurring at the penalty phase of a capital trial are generally subject to harmless-error review under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.

1988In Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987) 481 U.S. 393, 399 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 347, 353 , 107 S.Ct. 1821, 1824 ], the United States Supreme Court suggested that the kind of error under consideration here may be held nonprejudicial only when “it had no effect on the jury . . . .” (Cf. Satterwhite v. Texas (1988) 486 U.S. _ , _-_ [ 100 L.Ed.2d 284, 108 , S. Ct. 1792] (holding that errors of federal constitutional dimension occurring at the penalty phase of a capital trial are generally subject to harmless-error review under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.

1966“Since it was incumbent upon the petitioner—both in mandate and certiorari—to prepare and file in the superior court a tran *579 script of such testimony if he wished to contend that the evidence was insufficient, his failure to do so precludes an attack on the evidence on this appeal.” (Fickeisen v. Civil Service Com., 98 Cal.App.2d 419, 420-421 [ 220 P.2d 605 ]; see Black v. State Personnel Board, 136 Cal.App.2d 904, 909 [ 289 P.2d 863 ].) “It is well settled that in a proceeding of this kind the hearing is a type of de novo trial but that the administrative record must be presented to the c

1966“Since it was incumbent upon the petitioner—both in mandate and certiorari—to prepare and file in the superior court a tran *579 script of such testimony if he wished to contend that the evidence was insufficient, his failure to do so precludes an attack on the evidence on this appeal.” (Fickeisen v. Civil Service Com., 98 Cal.App.2d 419, 420-421 [ 220 P.2d 605 ]; see Black v. State Personnel Board, 136 Cal.App.2d 904, 909 [ 289 P.2d 863 ].) “It is well settled that in a proceeding of this kind the hearing is a type of de novo trial but that the administrative record must be presented to the c

1959(Estate of Dare, 196 Cal. 29, 41 [ 235 P. 725 ].) In our opinion, the “rents, issues and profits,” in the absence of any other specification or explanatory material in the will, is substantially synonjonous with the word “income” in a matter of the kind here at bar.

1959(Estate of Dare, 196 Cal. 29, 41 [ 235 P. 725 ].) In our opinion, the “rents, issues and profits,” in the absence of any other specification or explanatory material in the will, is substantially synonjonous with the word “income” in a matter of the kind here at bar.

2026The first theory (inherently) is incorrect, but the second theory (as used) is correct.” (Id. at p. 7.) 6 The Supreme Court has “considered the consequences when a court instructs on two theories of guilt, one correct and the other incorrect.” (Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 7 .) The Supreme Court “call[ed] this kind of error ‘alternative-theory error’” and “distinguished between two categories of incorrect theories.” (Id. at p. 7 & fn. 3.) A theory is ‘“factually inadequate”’ if “the theory is incorrect only because the evidence does not support it.” (Id. at p. 7.) If “‘the inadequacy of pr

2019Based on the state of the law at the time, in Guiton , we said that legal error is "subject to the rule generally requiring reversal." ( Guiton , supra , 4 Cal.4th at p. 1128 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365 , 847 P.2d 45 .) But we also said that this does not mean that reversal is always required when the error is legal. ( Id . at p. 1129, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 365 , 847 P.2d 45 .) Because the error in Guiton was purely factual, and thus subject to the lenient standard of review applicable to factually inadequate theories, we did not need to decide the exact standard of review of cases involving legal error. (

2001Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake." ( Wayte v. United States (1985) 470 U.S. 598, 607 , 105 S.Ct. 1524 , 84 L.Ed.2d 547 .) Thus, the mere fact that a prosecutor must exercise discretion in determining whether to file a charge under section 707(d) in criminal or juvenile court does not render such decision unconstitutional as a violation of se

2001Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution's general deterrence value, the Government's enforcement priorities, and the case's relationship to the Government's overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake." ( Wayte v. United States (1985) 470 U.S. 598, 607 , 105 S.Ct. 1524 , 84 L.Ed.2d 547 .) Thus, the mere fact that a prosecutor must exercise discretion in determining whether to file a charge under section 707(d) in criminal or juvenile court does not render such decision unconstitutional as a violation of se

2024Where an “information alleged two multiple-murder special circumstances, one in connection with each murder, and the jury 30 found both true,” our high court has concluded that “only one special circumstance finding is proper” and “one of the findings should be stricken.” (People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 425 .) “In numerous cases involving the same kind of error, [the Supreme Court] ha[s] stricken the superfluous finding and concluded the defendant suffered no prejudice.” (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 422 .) We reach the same conclusion and strike the second multiple murde

2008(See People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 422 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 721 , 165 P.3d 512 ].) “In numerous cases involving the same kind of error, we have stricken the superfluous finding and concluded the defendant suffered no prejudice. [Citations.] We do so again here. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) B.

2024Where an “information alleged two multiple-murder special circumstances, one in connection with each murder, and the jury 30 found both true,” our high court has concluded that “only one special circumstance finding is proper” and “one of the findings should be stricken.” (People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 425 .) “In numerous cases involving the same kind of error, [the Supreme Court] ha[s] stricken the superfluous finding and concluded the defendant suffered no prejudice.” (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 422 .) We reach the same conclusion and strike the second multiple murde

2007Superfluous Multiple-murder Special-circumstance Finding Defendant correctly notes that two multiple-murder special-circumstance allegations were erroneously charged and found true in this case. ( People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, 425 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 , 916 P.2d 1000 ; People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 787 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 667 , 726 P.2d 113 ; People v. Harris (1984) 36 Cal.3d 36, 67 , 201 Cal.Rptr. 782 , 679 P.2d 433 .) In numerous cases involving the same kind of error, we have stricken the superfluous finding and concluded the defendant suffered no prejudice.

2011If it concludes, based on these factors, that a class arbitration is likely to be a significantly more effective practical means of vindicating the rights of the affected employees than individual litigation or arbitration, and finds that the disallowance of the class action will likely lead to a less comprehensive enforcement of overtime laws for the employees alleged to be affected by the employer’s violations, it must invalidate the class arbitration waiver to ensure that these employees can ‘vindicate [their] unwaivable rights in an arbitration forum.’ (Little [v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003

2011If it concludes, based on these factors, that a class arbitration is likely to be a significantly more effective practical means of vindicating the rights of the affected employees than individual litigation or arbitration, and finds that the disallowance of the class action will likely lead to a less comprehensive enforcement of overtime laws for the employees alleged to be affected by the employer’s violations, it must invalidate the class arbitration waiver to ensure that these employees can ‘vindicate [their] unwaivable rights in an arbitration forum.’ (Little [v. Auto Stiegler, Inc. (2003

1993Sometimes it is possible to determine from other portions of the verdict that the jury necessarily found the defendant guilty on a proper theory. ( People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 24 [ 249 Cal. Rptr. 119 , 756 P.2d 843 ]; People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 770 [ 215 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 700 P.2d 782 ]; cf. People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 721 [ 112 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ] [applying the same analysis to find harmless the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense].) *1131 There may be additional ways by which a court can determine that error in the Green situation is harmless

1993Sometimes it is possible to determine from other portions of the verdict that the jury necessarily found the defendant guilty on a proper theory. ( People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1, 24 [ 249 Cal. Rptr. 119 , 756 P.2d 843 ]; People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 770 [ 215 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 700 P.2d 782 ]; cf. People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 721 [ 112 Cal. Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ] [applying the same analysis to find harmless the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense].) *1131 There may be additional ways by which a court can determine that error in the Green situation is harmless

1988In Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987) 481 U.S. 393, 399 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 347, 353 , 107 S.Ct. 1821, 1824 ], the United States Supreme Court suggested that the kind of error under consideration here may be held nonprejudicial only when “it had no effect on the jury . . . .” (Cf. Satterwhite v. Texas (1988) 486 U.S. _ , _-_ [ 100 L.Ed.2d 284, 108 , S. Ct. 1792] (holding that errors of federal constitutional dimension occurring at the penalty phase of a capital trial are generally subject to harmless-error review under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.

1988In Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987) 481 U.S. 393, 399 [ 95 L.Ed.2d 347, 353 , 107 S.Ct. 1821, 1824 ], the United States Supreme Court suggested that the kind of error under consideration here may be held nonprejudicial only when “it had no effect on the jury . . . .” (Cf. Satterwhite v. Texas (1988) 486 U.S. _ , _-_ [ 100 L.Ed.2d 284, 108 , S. Ct. 1792] (holding that errors of federal constitutional dimension occurring at the penalty phase of a capital trial are generally subject to harmless-error review under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt test of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.

2026The expert invites investigation into the extent of his knowledge, the reasons for his opinion including facts and other matters upon which it is based [citation], and which he took into consideration; and he may be ‘subjected to the most rigid cross-examination’ concerning his qualifications, and his opinion and its sources [citation].” (Italics added.)’ ” ’ ” (People v. Henriquez (2017) 4 Cal.5th 1, 26 ; see People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 105 .) Dr. Azizian testified on direct examination that he considered appellant’s arguably limited criminal history in forming his opinion that

2025(People v. Pellegrino (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 776, 781 (Pellegrino).) Again, delay of this kind does not bar prosecution.

2023(See La Jolla Cove Motel & Hotel Apartments, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 773, 777 [court correctly denied disqualification motion where there was “no evidence that [offending lawyers] obtained any confidential information that could give their clients an unfair advantage or impact upon the fairness of the trial or integrity of the judicial system”]; see also Snider, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 1197 .) Although defendants and the court placed great weight on the fact that the A-Plus employees could not recall the full details of what they disclosed to Rothstein, we are not pe

2023(See Richardson v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1040, 1050 [“a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate ‘(1) that counsel’s performance was deficient, i.e., that the representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, 5 This is an ideal example of the kind of error that can be remedied if a timely objection is made.

2023(See La Jolla Cove Motel & Hotel Apartments, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 773, 777 [court correctly denied disqualification motion where there was “no evidence that [offending lawyers] obtained any confidential information that could give their clients an unfair advantage or impact upon the fairness of the trial or integrity of the judicial system”]; see also Snider, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 1197 .) Although defendants and the court placed great weight on the fact that the A-Plus employees could not recall the full details of what they disclosed to Rothstein, we are not pe

2023(See La Jolla Cove Motel & Hotel Apartments, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 773, 777 [court correctly denied disqualification motion where there was “no evidence that [offending lawyers] obtained any confidential information that could give their clients an unfair advantage or impact upon the fairness of the trial or integrity of the judicial system”]; see also Snider, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 1197 .) Although defendants and the court placed great weight on the fact that the A-Plus employees could not recall the full details of what they disclosed to Rothstein, we are not pe