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.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2026 5 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. Bennettgreen2 sentences2025“When a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard the 8 comments, we assume the jury followed the admonition and that prejudice was therefore avoided.” (People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 595 .) The trial court also instructed the jury that “[n]othing that the attorneys say is evidence,” attorneys’ “questions are not evidence,” and “[i]f I sustained an objection, you must ignore the question. 2023(See People v. Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 [“When a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard the comments, we assume the jury followed the admonition and that prejudice 13 was therefore avoided.”].) Accordingly, nothing in the record suggests defendant’s right to a fair trial was “ ‘ “ ‘irreparably damaged.’ ” ’ ” (See People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 573 .) The case upon which defendant primarily relies, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017) 580 U.S. 206 , is distinguishable. | 4 | 7 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2026(See People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 734, 781, fn. 15 [recognizing that “the requirement that a defendant also seek a curative instruction to alleviate the effect of improper argument applies only if the court sustains the defense objection as to its impropriety”].) We conclude, however, that the prosecutor did not misstate the law regarding the presumption of innocence. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen1 sentence2015(People v. Carter, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1205 [“Defendant’s objection having been sustained, defendant bore the burden of seeking a curative admonition from the court.”].) Defendant did not forfeit this claim. 16 The Attorney General again faults defendant for not seeking a curative admonition, but for the same reason we described, ante, footnote 15, we conclude defendant did not forfeit this claim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Yodergreen1 sentence2014If I ordered the testimony stricken from the record, you must disregard it and must not consider that testimony for any purpose.” When a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard particular comments, we must assume the jury followed the court’s admonition and prejudice was avoided.2 (See People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 612 [“We assume the jury followed the 2 That the court did not, upon sustaining the objection, immediately admonish the jurors to disregard the statement, does not vitiate the assumption the jurors followed the instructions given at th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Earpgreen2 sentences2009(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 , 74 P.3d 820 ].) Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves “ 1 “the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 820 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 838 P.2d 204 ].) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, “ ‘the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request an admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not h 2009(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 , 74 P.3d 820 ].) Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves “ 1 “the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 820 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 838 P.2d 204 ].) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, “ ‘the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request an admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not h | 1 | 1 |
People v. Espinozagreen2 sentences2009(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 , 74 P.3d 820 ].) Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves “ 1 “the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 820 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 838 P.2d 204 ].) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, “ ‘the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request an admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not h 2009(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 , 74 P.3d 820 ].) Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves “ 1 “the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 820 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 838 P.2d 204 ].) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, “ ‘the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request an admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not h | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crewgreen2 sentences2009(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 , 74 P.3d 820 ].) Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves “ 1 “the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 820 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 838 P.2d 204 ].) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, “ ‘the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request an admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not h 2009(People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 733 , 74 P.3d 820 ].) Conduct that does not render a trial fundamentally unfair is error under state law only when it involves “ 1 “the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 820 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 682 , 838 P.2d 204 ].) To preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, “ ‘the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request an admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not h | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2009(People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 168 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 , 931 P.2d 960 ].) Whether misconduct warrants a mistrial is a decision which is within the sound discretion of the trial court. 2009(People v. Jones (1997) 15 Cal.4th 119, 168 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 , 931 P.2d 960 ].) Whether misconduct warrants a mistrial is a decision which is within the sound discretion of the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
green
2 sentences2023(See People v. Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 [“When a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard the comments, we assume the jury followed the admonition and that prejudice 13 was therefore avoided.”].) Accordingly, nothing in the record suggests defendant’s right to a fair trial was “ ‘ “ ‘irreparably damaged.’ ” ’ ” (See People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 573 .) The case upon which defendant primarily relies, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017) 580 U.S. 206 , is distinguishable. 2023(See People v. Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 [“When a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard the comments, we assume the jury followed the admonition and that prejudice 13 was therefore avoided.”].) Accordingly, nothing in the record suggests defendant’s right to a fair trial was “ ‘ “ ‘irreparably damaged.’ ” ’ ” (See People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 573 .) The case upon which defendant primarily relies, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017) 580 U.S. 206 , is distinguishable. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Avila
green
2 sentences2023(See People v. Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 [“When a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard the comments, we assume the jury followed the admonition and that prejudice 13 was therefore avoided.”].) Accordingly, nothing in the record suggests defendant’s right to a fair trial was “ ‘ “ ‘irreparably damaged.’ ” ’ ” (See People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 573 .) The case upon which defendant primarily relies, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017) 580 U.S. 206 , is distinguishable. 2023(See People v. Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 595 [“When a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard the comments, we assume the jury followed the admonition and that prejudice 13 was therefore avoided.”].) Accordingly, nothing in the record suggests defendant’s right to a fair trial was “ ‘ “ ‘irreparably damaged.’ ” ’ ” (See People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 573 .) The case upon which defendant primarily relies, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017) 580 U.S. 206 , is distinguishable. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Kelly
red
1 sentence2021Butte also contends the trial court abused its discretion in excluding, under People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24 (Kelly), the opinion testimony of his online communications expert. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Allen
green
1 sentence2014“It is only in the exceptional case that ‘the improper subject matter [of evidence] is of such a character that its effect . . . cannot be removed by the court’s admonitions.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Allen (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 924, 935 .) Thus, “[w]hen a trial court sustains defense objections and admonishes the jury to disregard the comments, we assume the jury followed the admonition and that prejudice was therefore avoided. [Citation.]” (People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 595 .) So too do we assume the jurors responded honestly to the court’s inquiry into whether they could disregard | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Hardy
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 208 .) Here, immediately after holding the foundational hearing during which it was confirmed that Detective Lawrie did not know whether the items in the bag belonged to defendant (other than the items defendant admitted were his), where the items were collected, or who collected them, the trial court struck the testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Jenkins
green
1 sentence2014For the same reasons, “we reject defendant’s contentions that the trial court . . . impaired his right to due process of law or to an impartial jury.” (People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 986 .) The Restitution Order Section 1202.4 governs restitution in criminal cases. (§ 1202.4) The term “loss” as used in the statute is to be “broadly and liberally” construed. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2013In People v. Lewis (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Lewis), the prosecution charged the defendant with selling cocaine and possessing the drug for sale. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 469 .) Accordingly, even if the prosecutor’s questions were improper, the court’s corrective actions eliminated the possibility of any unfairness. 4. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.