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 2 courts 1983–2026 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. Watsongreen2 sentences2026At the conclusion of the evidence, the court revisited that ruling and reaffirmed its ruling on the admissibility of the statements made during the Perkins operation because they showed a conspiracy. (i) Standards of Review and Prejudice “We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 540 , citing People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 .) Where evidence is erroneously admitted as a matter of state law, the test for harmless error is set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) “However, 2005The People are now aware (or re-aware) of Martinez and the investigator’s notes, making defense counsel’s discovery violations before the first trial irrelevant to a retrial. 7 The test for harmless error in instructing with CALJIC No. 2.28 is People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], which asks whether it is reasonably probable appellant would have achieved a more favorable result if the court had not given the instruction. | 2 | 4 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2026At the conclusion of the evidence, the court revisited that ruling and reaffirmed its ruling on the admissibility of the statements made during the Perkins operation because they showed a conspiracy. (i) Standards of Review and Prejudice “We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 540 , citing People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 .) Where evidence is erroneously admitted as a matter of state law, the test for harmless error is set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) “However, 2014The corroborating evidence of her participation and her state of mind was thus sufficient, and any error was harmless. 8 Spry acknowledges this test for harmless error set forth by the California Supreme Court, but contends that the evidence lightened the prosecution’s burden, and she asks that we instead deem it structural error which is reversible per se, or at the very least, review prejudice under the test of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [to determine whether error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt].) We decline, as our Supreme Court is the highest court to have consid | 1 | 3 |
People v. Valenciagreen1 sentence2026At the conclusion of the evidence, the court revisited that ruling and reaffirmed its ruling on the admissibility of the statements made during the Perkins operation because they showed a conspiracy. (i) Standards of Review and Prejudice “We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 540 , citing People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 .) Where evidence is erroneously admitted as a matter of state law, the test for harmless error is set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) “However, | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brevermangreen2 sentences2002(See generally People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 176-178 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 , 960 P.2d 1094 [miscarriage of justice occurs when it appears reasonably probable that the defendant would have achieved a more favorable result had the error not occurred under the test for harmless error set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 299 P.2d 243 ].) NOTES [*] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of the indicated portions of part IV(A), the heading for part IV(B), and part IV(C) in its entirety. 2002(See generally People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 176-178 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 , 960 P.2d 1094 [miscarriage of justice occurs when it appears reasonably probable that the defendant would have achieved a more favorable result had the error not occurred under the test for harmless error set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 299 P.2d 243 ].) NOTES [*] Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of the indicated portions of part IV(A), the heading for part IV(B), and part IV(C) in its entirety. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1998Indeed, both are consistent with the test for harmless error as explained in Yates, supra, 500 U.S. 391 , 111 S.Ct. 1884 and Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , i.e., both exceptions address "whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the [instructional] error." ( Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at p. 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , original italics omitted.) Where a defendant is acquitted of the crime, or concedes at trial the existence of the missing element, we can be sure the guilty verdict actually rendered was unaffected by the instructional err 1998Indeed, both are consistent with the test for harmless error as explained in Yates, supra, 500 U.S. 391 , 111 S.Ct. 1884 and Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , i.e., both exceptions address "whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the [instructional] error." ( Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at p. 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , original italics omitted.) Where a defendant is acquitted of the crime, or concedes at trial the existence of the missing element, we can be sure the guilty verdict actually rendered was unaffected by the instructional err | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences1991In light of the literal meaning of special instruction No. 60 and the court's statement that the instruction was self-explanatory, I conclude that a reasonable possibility exists that the mistyped instruction operated "to displace the independent judgment of the jury in favor of considerations of compromise and expediency" ( People v. Carter (1968) 68 Cal.2d 810, 817 [ 69 Cal. Rptr. 297 , 442 P.2d 353 ]) and improperly led one or more jurors to rule in favor of death as a result of a misunderstanding of the law. 1991In light of the literal meaning of special instruction No. 60 and the court's statement that the instruction was self-explanatory, I conclude that a reasonable possibility exists that the mistyped instruction operated "to displace the independent judgment of the jury in favor of considerations of compromise and expediency" ( People v. Carter (1968) 68 Cal.2d 810, 817 [ 69 Cal. Rptr. 297 , 442 P.2d 353 ]) and improperly led one or more jurors to rule in favor of death as a result of a misunderstanding of the law. | 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. Ng
green
1 sentence2026At the conclusion of the evidence, the court revisited that ruling and reaffirmed its ruling on the admissibility of the statements made during the Perkins operation because they showed a conspiracy. (i) Standards of Review and Prejudice “We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 540 , citing People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 .) Where evidence is erroneously admitted as a matter of state law, the test for harmless error is set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) “However, | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Waidla
green
1 sentence2026At the conclusion of the evidence, the court revisited that ruling and reaffirmed its ruling on the admissibility of the statements made during the Perkins operation because they showed a conspiracy. (i) Standards of Review and Prejudice “We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Ng (2022) 13 Cal.5th 448, 540 , citing People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 .) Where evidence is erroneously admitted as a matter of state law, the test for harmless error is set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) “However, | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2014(See Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 455 .) 19 III. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Neder v. United States
green
2 sentences2006Taken in context, Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1 [ 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 ] (Neder) and Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th 470 , are not inconsistent. 2006Taken in context, Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1 [ 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 ] (Neder) and Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th 470 , are not inconsistent. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Flood
green
1 sentence2006Taken in context, Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1 [ 144 L.Ed.2d 35 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 ] (Neder) and Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th 470 , are not inconsistent. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In Re Tahl
green
2 sentences2002In the published portion of this opinion, we address whether a defendant's admission of a prior conviction is voluntary and intelligent—the test for harmless error here—when the record reflects that the defendant has expressly waived his right to both a jury and court trial in connection with his admission of his prior conviction, but has neither been expressly advised of, nor waived, his rights to remain silent or to confront witnesses in accordance with Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 . 2002In the published portion of this opinion, we address whether a defendant's admission of a prior conviction is voluntary and intelligent—the test for harmless error here—when the record reflects that the defendant has expressly waived his right to both a jury and court trial in connection with his admission of his prior conviction, but has neither been expressly advised of, nor waived, his rights to remain silent or to confront witnesses in accordance with Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122 , 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Yates v. Evatt
green
2 sentences1998Indeed, both are consistent with the test for harmless error as explained in Yates, supra, 500 U.S. 391 , 111 S.Ct. 1884 and Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , i.e., both exceptions address "whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the [instructional] error." ( Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at p. 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , original italics omitted.) Where a defendant is acquitted of the crime, or concedes at trial the existence of the missing element, we can be sure the guilty verdict actually rendered was unaffected by the instructional err 1998Indeed, both are consistent with the test for harmless error as explained in Yates, supra, 500 U.S. 391 , 111 S.Ct. 1884 and Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , i.e., both exceptions address "whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the [instructional] error." ( Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at p. 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , original italics omitted.) Where a defendant is acquitted of the crime, or concedes at trial the existence of the missing element, we can be sure the guilty verdict actually rendered was unaffected by the instructional err | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Deletto
green
2 sentences1985(See People v. Metheney, supra, 154 Cal. App.3d at p. 564 ; People v. Deletto, supra, 147 Cal. App.3d at p. 466 .) In the present case, we cannot say the error was harmless. 1985(See People v. Metheney, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 564 ; People v. Deletto, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 466 .) In the present case, we cannot say the error was harmless. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Metheney
green
2 sentences1985(See People v. Metheney, supra, 154 Cal. App.3d at p. 564 ; People v. Deletto, supra, 147 Cal. App.3d at p. 466 .) In the present case, we cannot say the error was harmless. 1985(See People v. Metheney, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 564 ; People v. Deletto, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 466 .) In the present case, we cannot say the error was harmless. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. McIntyre
green
1 sentence1983In determining whether the failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 constituted harmless error, McIntyre used the test for harmless error announced in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , at page 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], i.e., whether “it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the ap *471 pealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” 7 (See People v. McIntyre, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 911 .) We conclude however, that the appropriate test by which a failure to give CALJIC No. 17.01 should be measured is that set forth in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Diedrich
green
1 sentence1983In order to explain our conclusion, we return again to People v. Diedrich, supra, 31 Cal.3d 263 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.