prosecution to rebut presumption in California

1986(People v. Pierce, supra, 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 ; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) As stated in Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 417 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ], the presumption may be rebutted by “an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party resulting from the misconduct.” Because the record before us discloses no evidence whatsoever by the prosecut

1986(People v. Pierce, supra, 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 ; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) As stated in Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 417 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ], the presumption may be rebutted by “an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party resulting from the misconduct.” Because the record before us discloses no evidence whatsoever by the prosecut

2026The trial court was free to reject Dr. Kaser-Boyd’s opinion.4 (People v. McCoy (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 778, 785 [“The trial court may reject completely the testimony of an expert witness, as long as its decision to do so is not arbitrary.”].) Effective January 1, 2023, section 1001.36 was amended to create a rebuttable presumption that a defendant’s mental disorder is a significant factor in their commission of the charged offenses. (§ 1001.36, subd. (b)(2).)5 The amendment shifted the burden to the prosecution to rebut the presumption by clear and 4 Because we affirm the trial court’s finding a

2022Moreover, “ ‘ “jurors must be given enough latitude in their deliberations to permit them to use common experiences and illustrations in reaching their verdicts.” ’ ” (People v. Bogle (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 770, 778 (Bogle).) “They may also ‘bring to their deliberations knowledge and beliefs about general matters of law and fact that find their source in everyday life and experience.’ ” (People v. Vigil (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1484 (Vigil).) “When jury misconduct has occurred, prejudice to the defendant is presumed and the burden is on the prosecution to rebut the presumption by showing th

2022Moreover, “ ‘ “jurors must be given enough latitude in their deliberations to permit them to use common experiences and illustrations in reaching their verdicts.” ’ ” (People v. Bogle (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 770, 778 (Bogle).) “They may also ‘bring to their deliberations knowledge and beliefs about general matters of law and fact that find their source in everyday life and experience.’ ” (People v. Vigil (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1484 (Vigil).) “When jury misconduct has occurred, prejudice to the defendant is presumed and the burden is on the prosecution to rebut the presumption by showing th

2016To establish a presumption of vindictive prosecution, the defendant must show the State "increased the charges [against him] in apparent response to [his] exercise of a procedural right[.]" ( Twiggs , supra , 34 Cal.3d at p. 371 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 152 , 667 P.2d 1165 .) 7 Then, the burden *817 shifts to the prosecution to rebut this presumption by dispelling the appearance of vindictiveness. ( Ibid. ) To do so, the prosecution must show that new evidence or an objective change in circumstances legitimately influenced the charging decision and that they could not reasonably have discovered that in

2016To establish a presumption of vindictive prosecution, the defendant must show the State "increased the charges [against him] in apparent response to [his] exercise of a procedural right[.]" ( Twiggs , supra , 34 Cal.3d at p. 371 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 152 , 667 P.2d 1165 .) 7 Then, the burden *817 shifts to the prosecution to rebut this presumption by dispelling the appearance of vindictiveness. ( Ibid. ) To do so, the prosecution must show that new evidence or an objective change in circumstances legitimately influenced the charging decision and that they could not reasonably have discovered that in

2014(People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 108-109 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710 , 96 P.3d 30 ]; but see id. at p. 109 [evidence presented by the prosecution to rebut defense evidence in mitigation need not relate to an aggravating factor].) Defendant’s argument that the jurors at the penalty phase were exposed to inadmissible evidence of his bad character unrelated to the aggravating factors mostly reprises his claims of error regarding (1) the joinder of the murder charge with all other counts and (2) the admission of evidence of his uncharged crimes.

2014(People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 108-109 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710 , 96 P.3d 30 ]; but see id. at p. 109 [evidence presented by the prosecution to rebut defense evidence in mitigation need not relate to an aggravating factor].) Defendant’s argument that the jurors at the penalty phase were exposed to inadmissible evidence of his bad character unrelated to the aggravating factors mostly reprises his claims of error regarding (1) the joinder of the murder charge with all other counts and (2) the admission of evidence of his uncharged crimes.

1986(People v. Pierce, supra, 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 ; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) As stated in Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 417 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ], the presumption may be rebutted by “an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party resulting from the misconduct.” Because the record before us discloses no evidence whatsoever by the prosecut

1986(People v. Pierce, supra, 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 ; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) As stated in Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 417 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ], the presumption may be rebutted by “an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party resulting from the misconduct.” Because the record before us discloses no evidence whatsoever by the prosecut

1978Under these circumstances we do not feel authorized to reverse the order of the Court below granting the defendant a new trial." ( Supra, 39 Cal. at pp. 375-376.) In People v. Stokes (1894) 103 Cal. 193, 198 [ 37 P. 207 ], it was explained that if jury misconduct is shown, it is for the prosecution "`to show as a matter of fact'" that the misconduct did not influence the verdict.

1978Under these circumstances we do not feel authorized to reverse the order of the Court below granting the defendant a new trial.” (Supra, 39 Cal. at pp. 375-376.) In People v. Stokes (1894) 103 Cal. 193, 198 [ 37 P. 207 ], it was explained that if jury misconduct is shown, it is for the prosecution “ ‘to show as a matter of fact’ ” that the misconduct did not influence the verdict.

1952(People v. Martin, 87 Cal.App.2d 581, 590-591 [ 197 P.2d 379 ].) In the present case, after the jury had retired for deliberation, the foreman of the jury left the jury room, without permission of the court, and went down the stairway to the hallway between the courtroom and chambers.

1952(People v. Martin, 87 Cal.App.2d 581, 590-591 [ 197 P.2d 379 ].) In the present case, after the jury had retired for deliberation, the foreman of the jury left the jury room, without permission of the court, and went down the stairway to the hallway between the courtroom and chambers.

1952(People v. Cross, 64 Cal.App. 443, 449 [ 221 P. 684 ].) The burden is upon the prosecution to rebut that presumption.

1952(People v. Cross, 64 Cal.App. 443, 449 [ 221 P. 684 ].) The burden is upon the prosecution to rebut that presumption.