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.
10 California opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2021 1 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. Younggreen2 sentences2020The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error.” (Id. at p. 691.) “ ‘ “When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, . . . a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding. [Citations.]” ’ ” (Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 864 .) On appeal, “[i]n resolving the question of whether, as a matter of law, the ev 2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error"]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1216, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 [if a defendant produces substantial evidence of incompetence, " 'due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right' " and the trial court has " 'no direction to exercise' "]; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372 , 383, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 [federal due process and state law require a trial court to suspend trial proceedings and conduct a mental competency hearing when the c | 1 | 3 |
People v. Kaplangreen2 sentences2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error"]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1216, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 [if a defendant produces substantial evidence of incompetence, " 'due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right' " and the trial court has " 'no direction to exercise' "]; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372 , 383, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 [federal due process and state law require a trial court to suspend trial proceedings and conduct a mental competency hearing when the c 2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error"]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1216, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112 , 105 P.3d 487 [if a defendant produces substantial evidence of incompetence, " 'due process requires that a full competence hearing be held as a matter of right' " and the trial court has " 'no direction to exercise' "]; People v. Kaplan (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 372 , 383, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 143 [federal due process and state law require a trial court to suspend trial proceedings and conduct a mental competency hearing when the c | 1 | 2 |
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. C.T. (In re C.A.)green2 sentences2021(In re B.R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 773 , 785 [“impossible” for child to be 5 Indian child absent adoptive or biological relationship to tribal member]; In re C.A., supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 521 [applying ICWA notice requirements to presumed father “would result in an improper expansion of the definition of an Indian child contained in the statute”].) Mother’s opening brief does not argue the failure to conduct an inquiry into Thomas’s potential Indian ancestry was prejudicial. 2021(In re B.R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 773 , 785 [“impossible” for child to be 5 Indian child absent adoptive or biological relationship to tribal member]; In re C.A., supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 521 [applying ICWA notice requirements to presumed father “would result in an improper expansion of the definition of an Indian child contained in the statute”].) Mother’s opening brief does not argue the failure to conduct an inquiry into Thomas’s potential Indian ancestry was prejudicial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Blairgreen1 sentence2020(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) “Evidence of incompetence may emanate from several sources, including the defendant’s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental evaluations.” (People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 ; see Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 525, 532-533 & fn. 2 [evidence of incompetence includes bizarre, noncompliant, or disruptive behavior and the filing of nonsensical motions or bizarre documents].) “To raise a doubt under the substantial evidence test, [courts] require more than ‘mere bizarre actions’ or statements, or even expert testimony that a d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2020(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) “Evidence of incompetence may emanate from several sources, including the defendant’s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental evaluations.” (People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 ; see Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 525, 532-533 & fn. 2 [evidence of incompetence includes bizarre, noncompliant, or disruptive behavior and the filing of nonsensical motions or bizarre documents].) “To raise a doubt under the substantial evidence test, [courts] require more than ‘mere bizarre actions’ or statements, or even expert testimony that a d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Blackgreen1 sentence2020(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) “Evidence of incompetence may emanate from several sources, including the defendant’s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental evaluations.” (People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 ; see Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 525, 532-533 & fn. 2 [evidence of incompetence includes bizarre, noncompliant, or disruptive behavior and the filing of nonsensical motions or bizarre documents].) “To raise a doubt under the substantial evidence test, [courts] require more than ‘mere bizarre actions’ or statements, or even expert testimony that a d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Marksgreen1 sentence2016The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error.” (People v. Lightsey, at p. 691; see People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531, 541 .) The criminal prosecution is “suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined.” (§ 1368, subd. (c).) “[U]pon a finding of a defendant’s incompetence to stand trial, criminal proceedings shall be suspended, and the defendant committed for treatment designed to restore his or her competency.” (People v. G.H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1560 .) If the court determi | 1 | 1 |
People v. Halegreen1 sentence2016The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error.” (People v. Lightsey, at p. 691; see People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531, 541 .) The criminal prosecution is “suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined.” (§ 1368, subd. (c).) “[U]pon a finding of a defendant’s incompetence to stand trial, criminal proceedings shall be suspended, and the defendant committed for treatment designed to restore his or her competency.” (People v. G.H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1560 .) If the court determi | 1 | 1 |
People v. G.H.green1 sentence2016The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error.” (People v. Lightsey, at p. 691; see People v. Hale (1988) 44 Cal.3d 531, 541 .) The criminal prosecution is “suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined.” (§ 1368, subd. (c).) “[U]pon a finding of a defendant’s incompetence to stand trial, criminal proceedings shall be suspended, and the defendant committed for treatment designed to restore his or her competency.” (People v. G.H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1560 .) If the court determi | 1 | 1 |
People v. Keenangreen2 sentences1990(See People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 519-520 [ 224 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [once a juror's inability to perform his duty is called into question, a hearing to determine the facts is clearly contemplated, and the failure to conduct a hearing is an abuse of discretion]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478 .) (8) We stated in Keenan that "when a trial court learns during deliberations of a jury-room problem which, if unattended, might later require the granting of a mistrial or new trial motion, the court may and should intervene promptly to nip the problem in the bud." ( Kee 1990(See People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 519-520 [ 224 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [once a juror's inability to perform his duty is called into question, a hearing to determine the facts is clearly contemplated, and the failure to conduct a hearing is an abuse of discretion]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478 .) (8) We stated in Keenan that "when a trial court learns during deliberations of a jury-room problem which, if unattended, might later require the granting of a mistrial or new trial motion, the court may and should intervene promptly to nip the problem in the bud." ( Kee | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burgenergreen2 sentences1990(See People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 519-520 [ 224 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [once a juror's inability to perform his duty is called into question, a hearing to determine the facts is clearly contemplated, and the failure to conduct a hearing is an abuse of discretion]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478 .) (8) We stated in Keenan that "when a trial court learns during deliberations of a jury-room problem which, if unattended, might later require the granting of a mistrial or new trial motion, the court may and should intervene promptly to nip the problem in the bud." ( Kee 1990(See People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 519-520 [ 224 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ] [once a juror's inability to perform his duty is called into question, a hearing to determine the facts is clearly contemplated, and the failure to conduct a hearing is an abuse of discretion]; People v. Keenan, supra, 46 Cal.3d 478 .) (8) We stated in Keenan that "when a trial court learns during deliberations of a jury-room problem which, if unattended, might later require the granting of a mistrial or new trial motion, the court may and should intervene promptly to nip the problem in the bud." ( Kee | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences1987(See People v. Elliott (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 984 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 205 ].) Respondent contends, however, that the error was harmless: “The overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt shows that it is not reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred absent error.” Assuming error, respondent concludes that the Watson standard (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]) applies and we agree. 1987(See People v. Elliott (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 984 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 205 ].) Respondent contends, however, that the error was harmless: “The overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt shows that it is not reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred absent error.” Assuming error, respondent concludes that the Watson standard (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]) applies and we agree. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re BR
green
1 sentence2021(In re B.R. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 773 , 785 [“impossible” for child to be 5 Indian child absent adoptive or biological relationship to tribal member]; In re C.A., supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at p. 521 [applying ICWA notice requirements to presumed father “would result in an improper expansion of the definition of an Indian child contained in the statute”].) Mother’s opening brief does not argue the failure to conduct an inquiry into Thomas’s potential Indian ancestry was prejudicial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2020The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error.” (Id. at p. 691.) “ ‘ “When a competency hearing has already been held and defendant has been found competent to stand trial, . . . a trial court need not suspend proceedings to conduct a second competency hearing unless it ‘is presented with a substantial change of circumstances or with new evidence’ casting a serious doubt on the validity of that finding. [Citations.]” ’ ” (Taylor, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 864 .) On appeal, “[i]n resolving the question of whether, as a matter of law, the ev | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2020(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) “Evidence of incompetence may emanate from several sources, including the defendant’s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental evaluations.” (People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 ; see Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 525, 532-533 & fn. 2 [evidence of incompetence includes bizarre, noncompliant, or disruptive behavior and the filing of nonsensical motions or bizarre documents].) “To raise a doubt under the substantial evidence test, [courts] require more than ‘mere bizarre actions’ or statements, or even expert testimony that a d 2020(People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 847 .) “Evidence of incompetence may emanate from several sources, including the defendant’s demeanor, irrational behavior, and prior mental evaluations.” (People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 847 ; see Johnson, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 525, 532-533 & fn. 2 [evidence of incompetence includes bizarre, noncompliant, or disruptive behavior and the filing of nonsensical motions or bizarre documents].) “To raise a doubt under the substantial evidence test, [courts] require more than ‘mere bizarre actions’ or statements, or even expert testimony that a d | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Medina v. California
green
2 sentences2018Code, § 1369, subd. (f).) "When the defendant puts his or her competence to stand trial in issue, the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she lacks competence." ( People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856 , 871, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 , 365 P.3d 297 ; see § 1369, subd. (f) ; Medina v. California (1992) 505 U.S. 437 , 446, 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 ( Medina ) [allocation of the burden of proof to a criminal defendant to prove incompetence does not violate procedural due process].) b. 2018Code, § 1369, subd. (f).) "When the defendant puts his or her competence to stand trial in issue, the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she lacks competence." ( People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856 , 871, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 , 365 P.3d 297 ; see § 1369, subd. (f) ; Medina v. California (1992) 505 U.S. 437 , 446, 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 ( Medina ) [allocation of the burden of proof to a criminal defendant to prove incompetence does not violate procedural due process].) b. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Mendoza
green
2 sentences2018Code, § 1369, subd. (f).) "When the defendant puts his or her competence to stand trial in issue, the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she lacks competence." ( People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856 , 871, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 , 365 P.3d 297 ; see § 1369, subd. (f) ; Medina v. California (1992) 505 U.S. 437 , 446, 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 ( Medina ) [allocation of the burden of proof to a criminal defendant to prove incompetence does not violate procedural due process].) b. 2018Code, § 1369, subd. (f).) "When the defendant puts his or her competence to stand trial in issue, the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she lacks competence." ( People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856 , 871, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 , 365 P.3d 297 ; see § 1369, subd. (f) ; Medina v. California (1992) 505 U.S. 437 , 446, 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 ( Medina ) [allocation of the burden of proof to a criminal defendant to prove incompetence does not violate procedural due process].) b. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Welch
green
2 sentences2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error." ( Lightsey , supra , 54 Cal.4th at 691 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 279 P.3d 1072 , citing People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 737-738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 .) The law presumes a person is competent to stand trial. ( Pen. 2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error." ( Lightsey , supra , 54 Cal.4th at 691 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 279 P.3d 1072 , citing People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 737-738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 .) The law presumes a person is competent to stand trial. ( Pen. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Lightsey
green
2 sentences2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error." ( Lightsey , supra , 54 Cal.4th at 691 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 279 P.3d 1072 , citing People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 737-738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 .) The law presumes a person is competent to stand trial. ( Pen. 2018The failure to conduct a hearing despite the presence of such substantial evidence is reversible error." ( Lightsey , supra , 54 Cal.4th at 691 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 , 279 P.3d 1072 , citing People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701 , 737-738, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 203 , 976 P.2d 754 .) The law presumes a person is competent to stand trial. ( Pen. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Anthony Damian Azure
green
1 sentence2010(U.S. v. Azure (8th Cir. 1988) 845 F.2d 1503, 1505-1506 .) The Court of Appeal erred in ruling otherwise. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Jones v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
green
1 sentence1992(Id., at p. 702, quoting Jones, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 402 .) Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, Simmons utilized “50 percent” as a ' “benchmark” for a finding of proximate cause in so-called wrongful life cases: “A less than 50-50 possibility that defendants’ omission caused the harm does not meet the requisite reasonable medical probability test of proximate cause.” (212 Cal.App.3d at pp. 702, 703.) Simmons restates the well-established principle that causation in actions arising from medical negligence must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based on competent expert te | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Elliott
green
2 sentences1987(See People v. Elliott (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 984 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 205 ].) Respondent contends, however, that the error was harmless: “The overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt shows that it is not reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred absent error.” Assuming error, respondent concludes that the Watson standard (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]) applies and we agree. 1987(See People v. Elliott (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 984 [ 139 Cal.Rptr. 205 ].) Respondent contends, however, that the error was harmless: “The overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt shows that it is not reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred absent error.” Assuming error, respondent concludes that the Watson standard (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]) applies and we agree. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.