103 California opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 67 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Avenagreen2 sentences2026“Under the ‘cumulative error’ doctrine, errors that are individually harmless may nevertheless have a cumulative effect that is prejudicial.” (In re Avena (1996) 12 Cal.4th 694, 772, fn. 32 .) A claim of cumulative error is essentially a due process claim. 2025“Under the ‘cumulative error’ doctrine, errors that are individually harmless may nevertheless have a cumulative effect that is prejudicial.” (In re Avena (1996) 12 Cal.4th 694, 772, fn. 32 .) A claim of cumulative error is essentially a due process claim. | 28 | 28 |
People v. Rivasgreen2 sentences2025Cumulative Error Defendant claims cumulative error, which “is present when the combined effect of the trial court’s errors is prejudicial or harmful to the defendant.” (People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1017 ; accord, People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 487 ; People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 897 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim and is often presented as such (see, e.g., People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 911 ). ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.”’” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 2025Cumulative error “[A] series of trial errors, though independently harmless, may in some circumstances rise by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim . . . .” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436 .) “ ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he reviewing court must ‘review each allegation and assess the cumulative effect of any errors to see if it is reasonably probable the j | 7 | 40 |
People v. Elizaldegreen2 sentences2022(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 201 , disapproved on another ground by People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 538, fn. 9 ; People v. Leeds (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 822, 837 .) III. 2021(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 201 , disapproved on another ground by People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 538, fn. 9 ; People v. Sedillo, supra, at p. 1068 ; People v. Leeds (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 822, 837 .) IV. | 4 | 7 |
People v. Rogersgreen2 sentences2025Cumulative Error Defendant claims cumulative error, which “is present when the combined effect of the trial court’s errors is prejudicial or harmful to the defendant.” (People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1017 ; accord, People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 487 ; People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 897 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim and is often presented as such (see, e.g., People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 911 ). ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.”’” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 2014A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim and is often presented as such (see, e.g., People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 911 ). | 3 | 6 |
People v. Richiegreen2 sentences2014“Because we identified only one harmless error, the claim of cumulative error is without merit.” (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 ; see also People v. Richie (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1364, fn. 6 [“Since we have found only one error properly preserved for appeal, we need not address appellant’s contention that cumulative error at trial requires reversal.”].) 22 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 2013However, “[b]ecause we identified only one harmless error [the trial court‟s failure to define 30 semiautomatic firearm], the claim of cumulative error is without merit.” (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 ; see also People v. Richie (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1364, fn. 6 [“Since we have found only one error properly preserved for appeal, we need not address appellant‟s contention that cumulative error at trial requires reversal.”].) 7. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Cucciagreen2 sentences2025Cumulative Error Defendant claims cumulative error, which “is present when the combined effect of the trial court’s errors is prejudicial or harmful to the defendant.” (People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1017 ; accord, People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 487 ; People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 897 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim and is often presented as such (see, e.g., People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 911 ). ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.”’” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 2020The “‘litmus test’ for cumulative error ‘is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.’” (People v. Cuccia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 785, 795 .) Thus, “[a] predicate to a claim of cumulative error is a finding of error.” (People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1068 .) Here, there is no cumulative effect of multiple errors, the only situation in which the cumulative error doctrine applies. | 2 | 10 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025“Under the cumulative error doctrine, the reviewing court must ‘review each allegation and assess the cumulative effect of any errors to see if it is reasonably probable the jury would have reached a result more favorable to [the] defendant in their absence.’ ” (People v. Williams (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587, 646 .) “ ‘In examining a claim of cumulative error, the critical question is whether [the] defendant received due process and a fair trial.’ ” (People v. Roberts (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 469 , 482.) Here, there are only two alleged errors, both of which relate to the same evidentiary issue. 2025Cumulative error “[A] series of trial errors, though independently harmless, may in some circumstances rise by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim . . . .” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436 .) “ ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he reviewing court must ‘review each allegation and assess the cumulative effect of any errors to see if it is reasonably probable the j | 1 | 9 |
People v. Caingreen2 sentences2026(People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 82 .) A predicate to a claim of cumulative error is a finding of error. 2025(Cain, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 82 ). | 1 | 7 |
In re Renogreen2 sentences2021(See In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 483 [“claims previously rejected on their substantive merits—i.e., this court found no legal error— cannot logically be used to support a cumulative error claim because we have already found there was no error to cumulate”].) And having found the error as to the first contention harmless, we reject the claim of cumulative error. 2020“In theory, the aggregate prejudice from several different errors occurring at trial could require reversal even if no single error was prejudicial by itself.” (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 483 .) However, “[a] predicate to a claim of cumulative error is a finding of error. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Butlergreen2 sentences2016(See People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 885 [claim of cumulative error failed where reviewing court “found no substantial error in any respect”].) “Defendant was entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.” (Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1009 .) We are satisfied that defendant received due process and a fair trial, and his claim of cumulative error fails. 2016(People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 885 .) V. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Winbushgreen1 sentence2025Cumulative Error Defendant claims cumulative error, which “is present when the combined effect of the trial court’s errors is prejudicial or harmful to the defendant.” (People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1017 ; accord, People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 487 ; People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 897 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim and is often presented as such (see, e.g., People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 911 ). ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.”’” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Duffgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Evansgreen | 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. Sedillo
green
2 sentences2026“In examining a claim of cumulative error, the critical question is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” (People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1068 .) We are satisfied that Waln received a trial that was fair and comported with due process.16 16 For the first time in his reply brief, Waln argues the trial court should have granted his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. 2025“Under the ‘cumulative error’ doctrine, errors that are individually harmless may nevertheless have a cumulative effect that is prejudicial.” (In re Avena (1996) 12 Cal.4th 694, 772, fn. 32 .) “In examining a claim of cumulative error, the critical question is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” (People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1068 .) Having examined the entire record, we are satisfied Gifford received a fair trial. | 27 | 2018–2026 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 201 , disapproved on another ground by People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 538, fn. 9 ; People v. Leeds (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 822, 837 .) III. 2021(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 201 , disapproved on another ground by People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 538, fn. 9 ; People v. Sedillo, supra, at p. 1068 ; People v. Leeds (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 822, 837 .) IV. | 7 | 2019–2022 |
People v. Hill
green
2 sentences2025Cumulative error “[A] series of trial errors, though independently harmless, may in some circumstances rise by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim . . . .” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436 .) “ ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he reviewing court must ‘review each allegation and assess the cumulative effect of any errors to see if it is reasonably probable the j 2023Cumulative error “[A] series of trial errors, though independently harmless, may in some circumstances rise by accretion to the level of reversible and prejudicial error.” (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim . . . .” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436 .) “ ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “[T]he reviewing court must ‘review each allegation and assess the cumulative effect of any errors to see if it is reasonably probable the j | 6 | 2013–2025 |
People v. Leeds
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 201 , disapproved on another ground by People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 538, fn. 9 ; People v. Leeds (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 822, 837 .) III. 2021(People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 165, 201 , disapproved on another ground by People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 538, fn. 9 ; People v. Sedillo, supra, at p. 1068 ; People v. Leeds (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 822, 837 .) IV. | 4 | 2020–2022 |
People v. Kronemyer
green
2 sentences2016In assessing a claim of cumulative error, the critical question is “whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” (People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 349 , overruled on another point in People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 742 .) Here, we have found no substantial error that could have affected the jury’s verdict. 2015(See generally People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 349 , disapproved on another point in People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733 [in assessing a claim of cumulative error, “the litmus test is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial”].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 11 ______________________________________ RUSHING, P.J. | 4 | 2014–2016 |
People v. Seaton
green
2 sentences2015(See People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 639 ; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 335 .) 9 Rios applied the Tewksbury rule to the admission of prior inconsistent statements: “Under this exception to the hearsay rule, a court may allow earlier statements of a witness in evidence to prove the truth of their content where they are inconsistent with matters to which the witness testifies at trial. 2014(See People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 639 ; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 335 .) 17. | 3 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Bolin
green
2 sentences2015(See People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 639 ; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 335 .) 9 Rios applied the Tewksbury rule to the admission of prior inconsistent statements: “Under this exception to the hearsay rule, a court may allow earlier statements of a witness in evidence to prove the truth of their content where they are inconsistent with matters to which the witness testifies at trial. 2014(See People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598, 639 ; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 335 .) 17. | 3 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Tully
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 1061 .) 16 2014(People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 1061 .) The $400 domestic violence fine is stricken. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Vieira
green
2 sentences2014“Because we identified only one harmless error, the claim of cumulative error is without merit.” (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 ; see also People v. Richie (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1364, fn. 6 [“Since we have found only one error properly preserved for appeal, we need not address appellant’s contention that cumulative error at trial requires reversal.”].) 22 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 2013However, “[b]ecause we identified only one harmless error [the trial court‟s failure to define 30 semiautomatic firearm], the claim of cumulative error is without merit.” (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 ; see also People v. Richie (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1347, 1364, fn. 6 [“Since we have found only one error properly preserved for appeal, we need not address appellant‟s contention that cumulative error at trial requires reversal.”].) 7. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Hinton
green
2 sentences2025Cumulative Error Defendant claims cumulative error, which “is present when the combined effect of the trial court’s errors is prejudicial or harmful to the defendant.” (People v. Capers (2019) 7 Cal.5th 989, 1017 ; accord, People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 487 ; People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 897 .) “A claim of cumulative error is in essence a due process claim and is often presented as such (see, e.g., People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 911 ). ‘The “litmus test” for cumulative error “is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.”’” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 2015"Under the cumulative error doctrine, the reviewing court must 'review each allegation and assess the cumulative effect of any errors to see if it is reasonably probable the jury would have reached a result more favorable to defendant in their absence.' [Citation.] When the cumulative effect of errors deprives the defendant of a fair trial and due process, reversal is required." (People v. Williams, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 646 .) However, to prevail on a claim of cumulative error, the defendant must show the 42 "errors . . . undermine[d] the facts supporting [his] guilt" and "explain[] ho | 2 | 2015–2025 |
People v. Bunyard
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1236-1237 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 .) “In examining a claim of cumulative error, the critical 47 question is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” (People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1068 ; accord, People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1436 (Rivas).) Taking all of Brown’s contentions into account, we are satisfied that he received a fair trial as to the robbery counts. 2013(People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1236–1237.) CONCLUSION The judgment in this case is affirmed. __________________________________ Dondero, J. | 2 | 2013–2021 |
Miller v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2017As to his sentence, Suarez contends it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 ( Miller ). 2017As to his sentence, Suarez contends it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 ( Miller ). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2016(See People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 885 [claim of cumulative error failed where reviewing court “found no substantial error in any respect”].) “Defendant was entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.” (Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1009 .) We are satisfied that defendant received due process and a fair trial, and his claim of cumulative error fails. 2015(People v. Cain (1995) 34 10 Cal.4th 1, 82 .) As the California Supreme Court has long held, “[a] [d]efendant [is] entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one.” (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1009 ; People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 454 .) Our review of the record assures us that defendants received due process and a fundamentally fair trial. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
People v. Whitmer
green
2 sentences2016In assessing a claim of cumulative error, the critical question is “whether defendant received due process and a fair trial.” (People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 349 , overruled on another point in People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733, 742 .) Here, we have found no substantial error that could have affected the jury’s verdict. 2015(See generally People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 349 , disapproved on another point in People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733 [in assessing a claim of cumulative error, “the litmus test is whether defendant received due process and a fair trial”].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 11 ______________________________________ RUSHING, P.J. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
| California v. Trombetta green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Garton
green
1 sentence2025To the extent we assumed error to address prejudice, “[t]he instructional and evidentiary errors were minor, especially in light of . . . the significant evidence of guilt, and they did not have ‘negative synergistic effect[s].’ ” (People v. Garton (2018) 4 Cal.5th 485, 521 ; see also People v. Williams, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 646 .) We thus conclude these errors do not demonstrate Dolce was deprived of due process and a fair trial. 9 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. /s/ FEINBERG, J. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Arizona v. Youngblood
green
1 sentence2025Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 (Trombetta); Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51 (Youngblood).) 2 We shall refer to this motion as Garcia’s Pitchess motion, in reference to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). 3 As a result, we need not address Garcia’s claim that the trial court also improperly instructed the jury on the union of act and intent for voluntary manslaughter. 4 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 5 By separate order, we deny Garcia’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus premised on the same alleged ineffective a | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pitchess v. Superior Court
red
1 sentence2025Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479 (Trombetta); Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51 (Youngblood).) 2 We shall refer to this motion as Garcia’s Pitchess motion, in reference to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). 3 As a result, we need not address Garcia’s claim that the trial court also improperly instructed the jury on the union of act and intent for voluntary manslaughter. 4 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 5 By separate order, we deny Garcia’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus premised on the same alleged ineffective a | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Heard
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Bacon (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1082, 1129 ; People v. Heard (2003) 31 Cal.4th 946, 982 .) IV. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Bacon
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Bacon (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1082, 1129 ; People v. Heard (2003) 31 Cal.4th 946, 982 .) IV. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Capers green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Paul C. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Falck green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Abilez green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Mora & Rangel green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Neely green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Bradford green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Chapman v. California red | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Woods green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Reed green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Diaz green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Sapp green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Mincey green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.