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 1 courts 1987–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hovey v. Superior Courtred2 sentences2016“Code of Civil Procedure section 223 provides in part: ‘Voir dire of any prospective jurors shall, where practicable, occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including death penalty cases.’ That provision, added by initiative (Prop. 115) in 1990, had the effect of abrogating this court’s supervisory direction in Hovey v. Superior Court[, supra,] 28 Cal.3d 1, 80 (Hovey) that the death-qualifying voir dire always be conducted individually and in sequestration, i.e., out of the other prospective jurors’ presence.” (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1050 [ 71 Cal.R 2016“Code of Civil Procedure section 223 provides in part: ‘Voir dire of any prospective jurors shall, where practicable, occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including death penalty cases.’ That provision, added by initiative (Prop. 115) in 1990, had the effect of abrogating this court’s supervisory direction in Hovey v. Superior Court[, supra,] 28 Cal.3d 1, 80 (Hovey) that the death-qualifying voir dire always be conducted individually and in sequestration, i.e., out of the other prospective jurors’ presence.” (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1050 [ 71 Cal.R | 3 | 5 |
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1997(People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495 , 518 & fn. 3 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ]; People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 596-597 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 399 , 789 P.2d 127 ].) The Hovey rule, which requires individual questioning while death-qualifying the jury, does not extend to other matters. 1997(People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495 , 518 & fn. 3 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ]; People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 596-597 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 399 , 789 P.2d 127 ].) The Hovey rule, which requires individual questioning while death-qualifying the jury, does not extend to other matters. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2016It is not. ―The Hovey rule was not constitutionally compelled; the electorate was free to abrogate it by initiative statute.‖ (People v. Brasure, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1050 .) He also contends the court abused its discretion. ―Under Code of Civil Procedure section 223, the trial court retains the discretion to conduct sequestered voir dire if it concludes that collective voir dire would not be practicable.‖ (People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 789 .) In this case, the prospective jurors were asked to fill out a detailed questionnaire so they could state their opinions untainted by the ot 2016It is not. ―The Hovey rule was not constitutionally compelled; the electorate was free to abrogate it by initiative statute.‖ (People v. Brasure, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1050 .) He also contends the court abused its discretion. ―Under Code of Civil Procedure section 223, the trial court retains the discretion to conduct sequestered voir dire if it concludes that collective voir dire would not be practicable.‖ (People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 789 .) In this case, the prospective jurors were asked to fill out a detailed questionnaire so they could state their opinions untainted by the ot | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brasuregreen2 sentences2016“Code of Civil Procedure section 223 provides in part: ‘Voir dire of any prospective jurors shall, where practicable, occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including death penalty cases.’ That provision, added by initiative (Prop. 115) in 1990, had the effect of abrogating this court’s supervisory direction in Hovey v. Superior Court[, supra,] 28 Cal.3d 1, 80 (Hovey) that the death-qualifying voir dire always be conducted individually and in sequestration, i.e., out of the other prospective jurors’ presence.” (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1050 [ 71 Cal.R 2016“Code of Civil Procedure section 223 provides in part: ‘Voir dire of any prospective jurors shall, where practicable, occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including death penalty cases.’ That provision, added by initiative (Prop. 115) in 1990, had the effect of abrogating this court’s supervisory direction in Hovey v. Superior Court[, supra,] 28 Cal.3d 1, 80 (Hovey) that the death-qualifying voir dire always be conducted individually and in sequestration, i.e., out of the other prospective jurors’ presence.” (People v. Brasure (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1037, 1050 [ 71 Cal.R | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carpenterred2 sentences1999“The Hovey rule, which requires individual questioning while death-qualifying the jury, does not extend to other matters.” (People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 377.) There was no abuse of discretion. 1999“The Hovey rule, which requires individual questioning while death-qualifying the jury, does not extend to other matters.” (People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 377.) There was no abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Laragreen2 sentences1987Because he merely states the point without offering either argument or authority in support, we have no reason to reexamine our holding in People v. Lara (1967) 67 Cal.2d 365, 394-395 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 586 , 432 P.2d 202 ], that section 1070.5 "does not violate either defendant's right to trial by an impartial jury or any other constitutional right." E. 1987Because he merely states the point without offering either argument or authority in support, we have no reason to reexamine our holding in People v. Lara (1967) 67 Cal.2d 365, 394-395 [ 62 Cal. Rptr. 586 , 432 P.2d 202 ], that section 1070.5 "does not violate either defendant's right to trial by an impartial jury or any other constitutional right." E. | 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. Slaughter
green
2 sentences2005(See, e.g., People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th 458, 490 ; People v. Slaughter, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1180 .) 13 The court asked whether jurors, because of their views on capital punishment, and notwithstanding the evidence in the case, would (1) refuse to convict defendant of first degree murder to prevent a penalty trial, (2) refuse to find the special circumstance true to prevent a penalty trial, (3) automatically refuse to vote for death and automatically vote for LWOP, and (4) automatically refuse to vote for LWOP and automatically vote f 2005(See, e.g., People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th 458, 490 ; People v. Slaughter, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1180 .) 13 The court asked whether jurors, because of their views on capital punishment, and notwithstanding the evidence in the case, would (1) refuse to convict defendant of first degree murder to prevent a penalty trial, (2) refuse to find the special circumstance true to prevent a penalty trial, (3) automatically refuse to vote for death and automatically vote for LWOP, and (4) automatically refuse to vote for LWOP and automatically vote f | 2 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Box
green
2 sentences2005(See, e.g., People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th 458, 490 ; People v. Slaughter, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1180 .) 13 The court asked whether jurors, because of their views on capital punishment, and notwithstanding the evidence in the case, would (1) refuse to convict defendant of first degree murder to prevent a penalty trial, (2) refuse to find the special circumstance true to prevent a penalty trial, (3) automatically refuse to vote for death and automatically vote for LWOP, and (4) automatically refuse to vote for LWOP and automatically vote f 2005(See, e.g., People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th 458, 490 ; People v. Slaughter, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1180 .) 13 The court asked whether jurors, because of their views on capital punishment, and notwithstanding the evidence in the case, would (1) refuse to convict defendant of first degree murder to prevent a penalty trial, (2) refuse to find the special circumstance true to prevent a penalty trial, (3) automatically refuse to vote for death and automatically vote for LWOP, and (4) automatically refuse to vote for LWOP and automatically vote f | 2 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Navarette
green
2 sentences2005(See, e.g., People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th 458, 490 ; People v. Slaughter, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1180 .) 13 The court asked whether jurors, because of their views on capital punishment, and notwithstanding the evidence in the case, would (1) refuse to convict defendant of first degree murder to prevent a penalty trial, (2) refuse to find the special circumstance true to prevent a penalty trial, (3) automatically refuse to vote for death and automatically vote for LWOP, and (4) automatically refuse to vote for LWOP and automatically vote f 2005(See, e.g., People v. Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th 458, 490 ; People v. Slaughter, supra, 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199 ; People v. Box, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1180 .) 13 The court asked whether jurors, because of their views on capital punishment, and notwithstanding the evidence in the case, would (1) refuse to convict defendant of first degree murder to prevent a penalty trial, (2) refuse to find the special circumstance true to prevent a penalty trial, (3) automatically refuse to vote for death and automatically vote for LWOP, and (4) automatically refuse to vote for LWOP and automatically vote f | 2 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Kelly
green
2 sentences1997(People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495 , 518 & fn. 3 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ]; People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 596-597 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 399 , 789 P.2d 127 ].) The Hovey rule, which requires individual questioning while death-qualifying the jury, does not extend to other matters. 1997(People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495 , 518 & fn. 3 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ]; People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 596-597 [ 268 Cal.Rptr. 399 , 789 P.2d 127 ].) The Hovey rule, which requires individual questioning while death-qualifying the jury, does not extend to other matters. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Covarrubias v. Superior Court of Monterey Cty.
green
2 sentences2008Unlike the trial court in Covarrubias v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1182-1184 , 71 Cal. Rptr.2d 91 , the court here clearly did not rely simply on the fact Hovey had been statutorily abrogated, but expressly considered whether the circumstances of this particular case made collective voir dire impracticable. 2008Unlike the trial court in Covarrubias v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1182-1184 , 71 Cal. Rptr.2d 91 , the court here clearly did not rely simply on the fact Hovey had been statutorily abrogated, but expressly considered whether the circumstances of this particular case made collective voir dire impracticable. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Cudjo
green
2 sentences2008(See Hovey, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 74-80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 .) But in Hovey we concluded only that these possibilitiesand the People's lack of opposition to a requirement for individual voir direwarranted using our supervisory authority to mandate individual, sequestered death qualification. ( Id. at p. 80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 .) The Hovey rule was not constitutionally compelled; the electorate was free to abrogate it by initiative statute. ( People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 537 , 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 108 P.3d 182 ; People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 2008(See Hovey, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 74-80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 .) But in Hovey we concluded only that these possibilitiesand the People's lack of opposition to a requirement for individual voir direwarranted using our supervisory authority to mandate individual, sequestered death qualification. ( Id. at p. 80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 .) The Hovey rule was not constitutionally compelled; the electorate was free to abrogate it by initiative statute. ( People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 537 , 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 108 P.3d 182 ; People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Stitely
green
2 sentences2008(See Hovey, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 74-80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 .) But in Hovey we concluded only that these possibilitiesand the People's lack of opposition to a requirement for individual voir direwarranted using our supervisory authority to mandate individual, sequestered death qualification. ( Id. at p. 80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 .) The Hovey rule was not constitutionally compelled; the electorate was free to abrogate it by initiative statute. ( People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 537 , 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 108 P.3d 182 ; People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 2008(See Hovey, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 74-80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 .) But in Hovey we concluded only that these possibilitiesand the People's lack of opposition to a requirement for individual voir direwarranted using our supervisory authority to mandate individual, sequestered death qualification. ( Id. at p. 80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 .) The Hovey rule was not constitutionally compelled; the electorate was free to abrogate it by initiative statute. ( People v. Stitely, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 537 , 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 108 P.3d 182 ; People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Velasquez
green
2 sentences1991The trial court denied the Hovey motion; defendant does not challenge that ruling on appeal. [19] People v. Velasquez, supra, 26 Cal.3d 425 , was vacated by the United States Supreme court and subsequently reinstated in its entirety in People v. Velasquez (1980) 28 Cal.3d 461 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 507 , 622 P.2d 952 ]. [20] Evidence Code section 972, subdivision (f) makes the spousal privilege inapplicable in "A proceeding resulting from a criminal act which occurred prior to legal marriage of the spouses to each other regarding knowledge acquired prior to that marriage if prior to the legal marria 1991People v. Velasquez, supra, 26 Cal.3d 425 , was vacated by the United States Supreme court and subsequently reinstated in its entirety in People v. Velasquez (1980) 28 Cal.3d 461 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 507 , 622 P.2d 952 ]. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Velasquez
green
2 sentences1991The trial court denied the Hovey motion; defendant does not challenge that ruling on appeal. [19] People v. Velasquez, supra, 26 Cal.3d 425 , was vacated by the United States Supreme court and subsequently reinstated in its entirety in People v. Velasquez (1980) 28 Cal.3d 461 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 507 , 622 P.2d 952 ]. [20] Evidence Code section 972, subdivision (f) makes the spousal privilege inapplicable in "A proceeding resulting from a criminal act which occurred prior to legal marriage of the spouses to each other regarding knowledge acquired prior to that marriage if prior to the legal marria 1991The trial court denied the Hovey motion; defendant does not challenge that ruling on appeal. [19] People v. Velasquez, supra, 26 Cal.3d 425 , was vacated by the United States Supreme court and subsequently reinstated in its entirety in People v. Velasquez (1980) 28 Cal.3d 461 [ 171 Cal. Rptr. 507 , 622 P.2d 952 ]. [20] Evidence Code section 972, subdivision (f) makes the spousal privilege inapplicable in "A proceeding resulting from a criminal act which occurred prior to legal marriage of the spouses to each other regarding knowledge acquired prior to that marriage if prior to the legal marria | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.