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.
13 California opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ochoagreen1 sentence2020We reject this claim as well.” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 435 (Ochoa).) Defendant makes the following argument concerning the cumulative effect of defense counsel’s asserted deficiencies: “[Defendant] is not saying counsel’s separate acts were separately harmless, but rather combined effect contributed to the adverse result. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jablonskigreen2 sentences2007However, as defendant "has demonstrated few errors, and we have already found such errors or possible errors harmless, either individually or cumulative, `we likewise conclude that their cumulative effect does not warrant reversal of the judgment' ( People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 479-480 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672 , 107 P.3d 790 ].)" ( People v. Jablonski supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 837, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 98 , 126 P.3d 938 .) Defendant also argues that, were we to set aside any conviction or special circumstance finding, the entire matter must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. 2007However, as defendant "has demonstrated few errors, and we have already found such errors or possible errors harmless, either individually or cumulative, `we likewise conclude that their cumulative effect does not warrant reversal of the judgment' ( People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 479-480 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672 , 107 P.3d 790 ].)" ( People v. Jablonski supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 837, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 98 , 126 P.3d 938 .) Defendant also argues that, were we to set aside any conviction or special circumstance finding, the entire matter must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Welchgreen2 sentences2001Such error as did occur, viewed cumulatively, “did not significantly influence the fairness of defendant’s trial or detrimentally affect the jury’s determination of the appropriate penalty.” (People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th 1, 84 ; see People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 775 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ].) 7. 2001Such error as did occur, viewed cumulatively, “did not significantly influence the fairness of defendant’s trial or detrimentally affect the jury’s determination of the appropriate penalty.” (People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th 1, 84 ; see People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 775 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ].) 7. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1996(In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1264-1266 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 774 P.2d 164 ]; In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d 161, 180 ; see also People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 191-227 [cumulative error held to be prejudicial in habeas corpus proceedings consolidated with the defendant’s appeal].) In examining whether the cumulative effect of defense counsel’s errors at the guilt phase of the trial undermines our confidence in the outcome under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 694 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697-698 ], our analysis is framed by those specific cont 1996(In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1264-1266 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 774 P.2d 164 ]; In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d 161, 180 ; see also People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 191-227 [cumulative error held to be prejudicial in habeas corpus proceedings consolidated with the defendant’s appeal].) In examining whether the cumulative effect of defense counsel’s errors at the guilt phase of the trial undermines our confidence in the outcome under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 694 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697-698 ], our analysis is framed by those specific cont | 1 | 1 |
In Re Sixtogreen2 sentences1996(In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1264-1266 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 774 P.2d 164 ]; In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d 161, 180 ; see also People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 191-227 [cumulative error held to be prejudicial in habeas corpus proceedings consolidated with the defendant’s appeal].) In examining whether the cumulative effect of defense counsel’s errors at the guilt phase of the trial undermines our confidence in the outcome under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 694 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697-698 ], our analysis is framed by those specific cont 1996(In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1264-1266 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 774 P.2d 164 ]; In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d 161, 180 ; see also People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 191-227 [cumulative error held to be prejudicial in habeas corpus proceedings consolidated with the defendant’s appeal].) In examining whether the cumulative effect of defense counsel’s errors at the guilt phase of the trial undermines our confidence in the outcome under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 694 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697-698 ], our analysis is framed by those specific cont | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ledesmagreen1 sentence1996(In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1264-1266 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 774 P.2d 164 ]; In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d 161, 180 ; see also People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 191-227 [cumulative error held to be prejudicial in habeas corpus proceedings consolidated with the defendant’s appeal].) In examining whether the cumulative effect of defense counsel’s errors at the guilt phase of the trial undermines our confidence in the outcome under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 694 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697-698 ], our analysis is framed by those specific cont | 1 | 1 |
Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Venturagreen1 sentence1994Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b); State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130, 11 15355.) The term “ ‘[cumulative impacts’ refer[s] to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15355.) If an identified cumulative impact is not determined to be significant, an EIR is “required to at least briefly state and explain such conclusion.” (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 432 [222 *740 Cal.Rptr. 247].) The importance of the cumulative effect an | 1 | 1 |
Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences1994Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b); State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130, 11 15355.) The term “ ‘[cumulative impacts’ refer[s] to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15355.) If an identified cumulative impact is not determined to be significant, an EIR is “required to at least briefly state and explain such conclusion.” (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 432 [222 *740 Cal.Rptr. 247].) The importance of the cumulative effect an 1994Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b); State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130, 11 15355.) The term “ ‘[cumulative impacts’ refer[s] to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15355.) If an identified cumulative impact is not determined to be significant, an EIR is “required to at least briefly state and explain such conclusion.” (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 432 [222 *740 Cal.Rptr. 247].) The importance of the cumulative effect an | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hatchettgreen2 sentences1978Although in a proper case this is a ground for reversal (see People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 726 [ 256 P.2d 317 ]; People v. Hatchett (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 144, 152 [ 146 P.2d 469 ]), this is not such a case. 1978Although in a proper case this is a ground for reversal (see People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 726 [ 256 P.2d 317 ]; People v. Hatchett (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 144, 152 [ 146 P.2d 469 ]), this is not such a case. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Buffumgreen2 sentences1978Although in a proper case this is a ground for reversal (see People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 726 [ 256 P.2d 317 ]; People v. Hatchett (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 144, 152 [ 146 P.2d 469 ]), this is not such a case. 1978Although in a proper case this is a ground for reversal (see People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 726 [ 256 P.2d 317 ]; People v. Hatchett (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 144, 152 [ 146 P.2d 469 ]), this is not such a case. | 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. Sturm
green
2 sentences2021Further, the case defendant relies upon for the proposition that cumulative error may be reviewed under the Chapman standard of harmless error, People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218, 1244 , does not stand for that proposition. 2021Further, the case defendant relies upon for the proposition that cumulative error may be reviewed under the Chapman standard of harmless error, People v. Sturm (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1218, 1244 , does not stand for that proposition. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Panah
green
2 sentences2007However, as defendant "has demonstrated few errors, and we have already found such errors or possible errors harmless, either individually or cumulative, `we likewise conclude that their cumulative effect does not warrant reversal of the judgment' ( People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 479-480 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672 , 107 P.3d 790 ].)" ( People v. Jablonski supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 837, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 98 , 126 P.3d 938 .) Defendant also argues that, were we to set aside any conviction or special circumstance finding, the entire matter must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. 2007However, as defendant "has demonstrated few errors, and we have already found such errors or possible errors harmless, either individually or cumulative, `we likewise conclude that their cumulative effect does not warrant reversal of the judgment' ( People v. Panah, supra, 35 Cal.4th at pp. 479-480 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672 , 107 P.3d 790 ].)" ( People v. Jablonski supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 837, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 98 , 126 P.3d 938 .) Defendant also argues that, were we to set aside any conviction or special circumstance finding, the entire matter must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
In re Jones
green
1 sentence2023(In re Jones (1996) 13 Cal.4th 552, 583 .)6 2. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Schmeck
green
1 sentence2014Claims of Constitutional and Cumulative Error In view of our conclusions rejecting the claims of error, we also reject contentions that the claimed errors (1) violate federal and state constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial (see People v. Schmeck (2005) 37 Cal.4th 240, 288 ), and (2) created a cumulative effect of error requiring reversal. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Hill
green
1 sentence2014The California Supreme Court has instructed that “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 .) In the present case, we have determined that none of the above claimed actions on the part of the court were prejudicial error. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
El-Attar v. Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center
green
1 sentence2013(See El-Attar, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 997 .) Appellant now urges us to consider the cumulative effect of that violation in the context of other alleged violations. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence2001Such error as did occur, viewed cumulatively, “did not significantly influence the fairness of defendant’s trial or detrimentally affect the jury’s determination of the appropriate penalty.” (People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th 1, 84 ; see People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 775 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 ].) 7. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In Re Cordero
green
1 sentence1996(In re Sixto (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1247, 1264-1266 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 774 P.2d 164 ]; In re Cordero, supra, 46 Cal.3d 161, 180 ; see also People v. Ledesma, supra, 43 Cal.3d 171, 191-227 [cumulative error held to be prejudicial in habeas corpus proceedings consolidated with the defendant’s appeal].) In examining whether the cumulative effect of defense counsel’s errors at the guilt phase of the trial undermines our confidence in the outcome under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 694 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 697-698 ], our analysis is framed by those specific cont | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.