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 1944–2024 4 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. Partidagreen1 sentence2024A party “may not argue that the court should have excluded the evidence for a reason different from his trial objection.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 435 (Partida).) Thus, “[t]o the extent defendant argues that admission of the . . . evidence violated his federal constitutional rights to due process, . . . we find [that issue was] not preserved for appeal because defendant did not object at trial on those specific grounds.” (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424 .)7 6 While the record reveals that defense counsel articulated a need to examine the evidence to see if it was | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rossgreen1 sentence2022(People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1193 [“Inasmuch as defendant both suggested and consented to the responses given by the court, the claim of error has been waived.”]; People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1048 [“A defendant may forfeit an objection to the court’s response to a jury inquiry through counsel’s consent, or invitation or tacit approval of, that response.”].) For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded the instructional error was prejudicial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodriguesgreen1 sentence2022(People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1193 [“Inasmuch as defendant both suggested and consented to the responses given by the court, the claim of error has been waived.”]; People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1048 [“A defendant may forfeit an objection to the court’s response to a jury inquiry through counsel’s consent, or invitation or tacit approval of, that response.”].) For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded the instructional error was prejudicial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Michaelsgreen2 sentences2007(People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 523 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 285 , 49 P.3d 1032 ] (Michaels).) To the contrary, the record reveals that defense counsel sought to present a defense that would minimize defendant’s culpability based upon her own description of the events, and that possibly would avoid imposition of the death penalty. 2007(People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 523 [ 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 285 , 49 P.3d 1032 ] (Michaels).) To the contrary, the record reveals that defense counsel sought to present a defense that would minimize defendant’s culpability based upon her own description of the events, and that possibly would avoid imposition of the death penalty. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen2 sentences2005Even assuming that the trial court improperly excluded evidence related to the concealed handguns, for the reasons discussed in part II.B.1.a above and because defense counsel in fact cross-examined Aldridge on the subject and elicited the testimony described, any state-law error was harmless under the "reasonable possibility" standard of People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ( Brown ), and any federal constitutional error was nonprejudicial under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 . 2005Even assuming that the trial court improperly excluded evidence related to the concealed handguns, for the reasons discussed in part II.B.1.a above and because defense counsel in fact cross-examined Aldridge on the subject and elicited the testimony described, any state-law error was harmless under the "reasonable possibility" standard of People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 448 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 604 , 758 P.2d 1135 ( Brown ), and any federal constitutional error was nonprejudicial under the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Danielsongreen2 sentences1993Jurors must be excused if their views on capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with the instructions and their oath. ( People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 712-713 [ 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 1 , 838 P.2d 729 ], quoting Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ].) Our review of the record reveals no error in the exclusion of the two venirepersons. 1993Jurors must be excused if their views on capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with the instructions and their oath. ( People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 712-713 [ 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 1 , 838 P.2d 729 ], quoting Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ].) Our review of the record reveals no error in the exclusion of the two venirepersons. | 1 | 1 |
Wainwright v. Wittgreen2 sentences1993Jurors must be excused if their views on capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with the instructions and their oath. ( People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 712-713 [ 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 1 , 838 P.2d 729 ], quoting Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ].) Our review of the record reveals no error in the exclusion of the two venirepersons. 1993Jurors must be excused if their views on capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with the instructions and their oath. ( People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 712-713 [ 13 Cal. Rptr.2d 1 , 838 P.2d 729 ], quoting Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ].) Our review of the record reveals no error in the exclusion of the two venirepersons. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boltongreen2 sentences1980(People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 214 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 ].) But a careful look at the record reveals that the error here is not sufficiently harmful to merit reversal of appellant’s conviction. 1980(People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 214 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 ].) But a careful look at the record reveals that the error here is not sufficiently harmful to merit reversal of appellant’s conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences1944(Wilson v. Nichols, supra, 55 Cal.App.2d 678, 683 [ 131 P.2d 596 ].) The record reveals no error in denying plaintiffs’ motion respecting the taxing of costs. 1944(Wilson v. Nichols, supra, 55 Cal.App.2d 678, 683 [ 131 P.2d 596 ].) The record reveals no error in denying plaintiffs’ motion respecting the taxing of costs. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2023(Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) “To say that an error did not ‘contribute’ to the ensuing verdict is not, of course, to say that the jury was totally unaware of that feature of the trial later held to have been erroneous.” (Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. 391, 403 , disapproved on other grounds in Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72–73, fn. 4.) Rather, an error did not contribute to the verdict when the record reveals the error was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. 2022(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) “To say that an error did not ‘contribute’ to the ensuing verdict is not, of course, to say that the jury was totally unaware of that feature of the trial later held to have been erroneous.” (Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. 391, 403 , disapproved on other grounds in Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72–73, fn. 4.) Rather, an error did not contribute to the verdict when the record reveals the error was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. | 3 | 2005–2023 |
Sullivan v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2023(Ibid.) “The inquiry, in other words, is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 , italics omitted.) Considering the overwhelming evidence of guilt, any presumed error was harmless. 2022(Ibid.) “The inquiry, in other words, is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 , italics omitted.) Here, appellant’s interview was unnecessary to conclusively establish the elements of attempted murder. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Estelle v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2023(Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) “To say that an error did not ‘contribute’ to the ensuing verdict is not, of course, to say that the jury was totally unaware of that feature of the trial later held to have been erroneous.” (Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. 391, 403 , disapproved on other grounds in Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72–73, fn. 4.) Rather, an error did not contribute to the verdict when the record reveals the error was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. 2022(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) “To say that an error did not ‘contribute’ to the ensuing verdict is not, of course, to say that the jury was totally unaware of that feature of the trial later held to have been erroneous.” (Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. 391, 403 , disapproved on other grounds in Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72–73, fn. 4.) Rather, an error did not contribute to the verdict when the record reveals the error was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Yates v. Evatt
green
2 sentences2023(Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) “To say that an error did not ‘contribute’ to the ensuing verdict is not, of course, to say that the jury was totally unaware of that feature of the trial later held to have been erroneous.” (Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. 391, 403 , disapproved on other grounds in Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72–73, fn. 4.) Rather, an error did not contribute to the verdict when the record reveals the error was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. 2022(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) “To say that an error did not ‘contribute’ to the ensuing verdict is not, of course, to say that the jury was totally unaware of that feature of the trial later held to have been erroneous.” (Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. 391, 403 , disapproved on other grounds in Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72–73, fn. 4.) Rather, an error did not contribute to the verdict when the record reveals the error was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
People v. Boyette
green
1 sentence2024A party “may not argue that the court should have excluded the evidence for a reason different from his trial objection.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 435 (Partida).) Thus, “[t]o the extent defendant argues that admission of the . . . evidence violated his federal constitutional rights to due process, . . . we find [that issue was] not preserved for appeal because defendant did not object at trial on those specific grounds.” (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 424 .)7 6 While the record reveals that defense counsel articulated a need to examine the evidence to see if it was | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Marriage of Romero
green
2 sentences2014Subdivision (b) of section 4323 provides as follows: “The income of a supporting spouse’s subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or modifying spousal support.” In In re Marriage of Romero (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1436 (Romero) [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], this court interpreted section 4323, subdivision (b) to require the trial court, in determining a supporting spouse’s ability to pay spousal support, to eliminate from consideration not only “new mate income,” but also “all additional expenses resulting from the remarriage [or nonmarital partnership].” ( Ro 2014Subdivision (b) of section 4323 provides as follows: “The income of a supporting spouse’s subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or modifying spousal support.” In In re Marriage of Romero (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1436 (Romero) [Fourth Dist., Div. Two], this court interpreted section 4323, subdivision (b) to require the trial court, in determining a supporting spouse’s ability to pay spousal support, to eliminate from consideration not only “new mate income,” but also “all additional expenses resulting from the remarriage [or nonmarital partnership].” ( Ro | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Cole
green
1 sentence2007(Co le, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1190 , citing Michaels, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 523 .) To the contrary, the record reveals that defense counsel vigorously and conscientiously pursued a defense designed to temper defendant’s culpability, based upon the version of events conveyed by defendant both to counsel and to the expert witness Dr. Edwards. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Campbell v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2003(See Campbell v. Louisiana (1998) 523 U.S. 392, 397-398 , 118 S.Ct. 1419 , 140 L.Ed.2d 551 .) [4] A close reading of the record reveals that defense counsel did ultimately adopt this concern after the jury had been sworn, which was too late to preserve the claim for appeal. 2003(See Campbell v. Louisiana (1998) 523 U.S. 392, 397-398 , 118 S.Ct. 1419 , 140 L.Ed.2d 551 .) [4] A close reading of the record reveals that defense counsel did ultimately adopt this concern after the jury had been sworn, which was too late to preserve the claim for appeal. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Fioritto
green
2 sentences1970Petitioner, relying on People v. Fioritto, 68 Cal.2d 714 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 441 P.2d 625 ], contends that his admissions to Captain Howard should have been excluded. 1970Petitioner, relying on People v. Fioritto, 68 Cal.2d 714 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 441 P.2d 625 ], contends that his admissions to Captain Howard should have been excluded. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Witherspoon v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1969A review of the record reveals no error under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 ]. 1969A review of the record reveals no error under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 776 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 ]. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.