9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 3 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. Boldengreen2 sentences2021(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 562 (Bolden); accord, People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1233 (Mooc); People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 52 [“a prosecutor may not examine a witness solely to imply or insinuate the truth of the facts about which questions are posed”].) Wilson contends the prosecutor violated this rule because she did not have a good faith basis for asking him whether Tanner had told him that Stevens had a gun. 2021(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 562 (Bolden); accord, People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1233 (Mooc); People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 52 [“a prosecutor may not examine a witness solely to imply or insinuate the truth of the facts about which questions are posed”].) Wilson contends the prosecutor violated this rule because she did not have a good faith basis for asking him whether Tanner had told him that Stevens had a gun. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Visciottigreen2 sentences2021(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 562 (Bolden); accord, People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1233 (Mooc); People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 52 [“a prosecutor may not examine a witness solely to imply or insinuate the truth of the facts about which questions are posed”].) Wilson contends the prosecutor violated this rule because she did not have a good faith basis for asking him whether Tanner had told him that Stevens had a gun. 2021(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 562 (Bolden); accord, People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1233 (Mooc); People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 52 [“a prosecutor may not examine a witness solely to imply or insinuate the truth of the facts about which questions are posed”].) Wilson contends the prosecutor violated this rule because she did not have a good faith basis for asking him whether Tanner had told him that Stevens had a gun. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Moocgreen2 sentences2021(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 562 (Bolden); accord, People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1233 (Mooc); People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 52 [“a prosecutor may not examine a witness solely to imply or insinuate the truth of the facts about which questions are posed”].) Wilson contends the prosecutor violated this rule because she did not have a good faith basis for asking him whether Tanner had told him that Stevens had a gun. 2021(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 562 (Bolden); accord, People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1233 (Mooc); People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 52 [“a prosecutor may not examine a witness solely to imply or insinuate the truth of the facts about which questions are posed”].) Wilson contends the prosecutor violated this rule because she did not have a good faith basis for asking him whether Tanner had told him that Stevens had a gun. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Zambranogreen1 sentence2026PENALTY PHASE ISSUES A. Prosecutor’s Comments on Lack of Remorse “The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ ” (Lopez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 368 .) This prohibition “ ‘ “forbids either direct or indirect comment upon the failure of the defendant to take the witness stand,’ ” ’ (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 ), and it applies to both the guilt and penalty phase of capital trials (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1174 (Zambrano), citing Estelle v. Smith ( | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences2011(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1210 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 , 70 P.3d 981 ].) Alternatively, Gonzales argues that rule 2-100 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from communicating with another *285 party in a case without the consent of the other party’s lawyer, and the prosecutor violated this rule by having his agent Berber communicate with Gonzales. 2011(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1210 [ 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 553 , 70 P.3d 981 ].) Alternatively, Gonzales argues that rule 2-100 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from communicating with another *285 party in a case without the consent of the other party’s lawyer, and the prosecutor violated this rule by having his agent Berber communicate with Gonzales. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Edelbachergreen2 sentences1998Defendant first contends the prosecutor improperly relied on character and background evidence offered in mitigation under section 190.3, factor (k) as a basis for imposing death. {People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1033 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d 1 ], applying People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 775-776 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 700 P.2d 782 ] {Boyd).) According to defendant, the prosecutor violated this principle by commenting on defendant’s personality and attitude towards others, his attributes as a young man, and the long-suffering nature of the father-son relationship. 1998Defendant first contends the prosecutor improperly relied on character and background evidence offered in mitigation under section 190.3, factor (k) as a basis for imposing death. {People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1033 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d 1 ], applying People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 775-776 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 700 P.2d 782 ] {Boyd).) According to defendant, the prosecutor violated this principle by commenting on defendant’s personality and attitude towards others, his attributes as a young man, and the long-suffering nature of the father-son relationship. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Boydgreen2 sentences1998Defendant first contends the prosecutor improperly relied on character and background evidence offered in mitigation under section 190.3, factor (k) as a basis for imposing death. {People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1033 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d 1 ], applying People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 775-776 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 700 P.2d 782 ] {Boyd).) According to defendant, the prosecutor violated this principle by commenting on defendant’s personality and attitude towards others, his attributes as a young man, and the long-suffering nature of the father-son relationship. 1998Defendant first contends the prosecutor improperly relied on character and background evidence offered in mitigation under section 190.3, factor (k) as a basis for imposing death. {People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1033 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 766 P.2d 1 ], applying People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 762, 775-776 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 700 P.2d 782 ] {Boyd).) According to defendant, the prosecutor violated this principle by commenting on defendant’s personality and attitude towards others, his attributes as a young man, and the long-suffering nature of the father-son relationship. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lavergnegreen2 sentences1991(People v. Lavergne (1971) 4 Cal.3d 735, 744 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 484 P.2d 77 ].) The rule does not apply here, however, because the prosecutor’s questions related directly to relevant matters raised on direct examination. 1991(People v. Lavergne (1971) 4 Cal.3d 735, 744 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 484 P.2d 77 ].) The rule does not apply here, however, because the prosecutor’s questions related directly to relevant matters raised on direct examination. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences1991But neither case bars brief references to the victims or their families. ( People v. Anderson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 453, 480 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 356 , 801 P.2d 1107 ].) The prosecutor referred to the "unbearable pain" defendant inflicted on the friends and relatives of the victims and their difficult "journey" when they paid their last respects. 1991But neither case bars brief references to the victims or their families. ( People v. Anderson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 453, 480 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 356 , 801 P.2d 1107 ].) The prosecutor referred to the "unbearable pain" defendant inflicted on the friends and relatives of the victims and their difficult "journey" when they paid their last respects. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
De Lancie v. Superior Court
red
2 sentences2002Defendant alleged the prosecutor violated the rule of De Lancie, supra, 31 Cal.3d 865 , 183 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 647 P.2d 142 , which bars monitoring of inmate conversations unless necessary for security purposes. 2002Defendant alleged the prosecutor violated the rule of De Lancie, supra, 31 Cal.3d 865 , 183 Cal.Rptr. 866 , 647 P.2d 142 , which bars monitoring of inmate conversations unless necessary for security purposes. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2026PENALTY PHASE ISSUES A. Prosecutor’s Comments on Lack of Remorse “The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ ” (Lopez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 368 .) This prohibition “ ‘ “forbids either direct or indirect comment upon the failure of the defendant to take the witness stand,’ ” ’ (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 ), and it applies to both the guilt and penalty phase of capital trials (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1174 (Zambrano), citing Estelle v. Smith ( | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2026PENALTY PHASE ISSUES A. Prosecutor’s Comments on Lack of Remorse “The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ ” (Lopez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 368 .) This prohibition “ ‘ “forbids either direct or indirect comment upon the failure of the defendant to take the witness stand,’ ” ’ (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 ), and it applies to both the guilt and penalty phase of capital trials (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1174 (Zambrano), citing Estelle v. Smith ( | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Estelle v. Smith
green
1 sentence2026PENALTY PHASE ISSUES A. Prosecutor’s Comments on Lack of Remorse “The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.’ ” (Lopez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 368 .) This prohibition “ ‘ “forbids either direct or indirect comment upon the failure of the defendant to take the witness stand,’ ” ’ (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 372 ), and it applies to both the guilt and penalty phase of capital trials (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1174 (Zambrano), citing Estelle v. Smith ( | 1 | 2026–2026 |
South Carolina v. Gathers
red
2 sentences1991(See People v. Heishman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 147, 189-190 .) (27) Defendant finally contends the prosecutor violated the rule of Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 440 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 ] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [ 104 L.Ed.2d 876 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 ] by referring to the impact the murders would have on the victims' friends and relatives. 1991(See People v. Heishman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 147, 189-190 .) (27) Defendant finally contends the prosecutor violated the rule of Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 440 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 ] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [ 104 L.Ed.2d 876 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 ] by referring to the impact the murders would have on the victims' friends and relatives. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Heishman
green
2 sentences1991(See People v. Heishman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 147, 189-190 .) Defendant finally contends the prosecutor violated the rule of Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 440 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 ] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [ 104 L.Ed.2d 876 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 ] by referring to the impact the murders would have on the victims’ friends and relatives. 1991(See People v. Heishman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 147, 189-190 .) (27) Defendant finally contends the prosecutor violated the rule of Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 440 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 ] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [ 104 L.Ed.2d 876 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 ] by referring to the impact the murders would have on the victims' friends and relatives. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Booth v. Maryland
red
2 sentences1991(See People v. Heishman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 147, 189-190 .) (27) Defendant finally contends the prosecutor violated the rule of Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 440 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 ] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [ 104 L.Ed.2d 876 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 ] by referring to the impact the murders would have on the victims' friends and relatives. 1991(See People v. Heishman, supra, 45 Cal.3d 147, 189-190 .) (27) Defendant finally contends the prosecutor violated the rule of Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496 [ 96 L.Ed.2d 440 , 107 S.Ct. 2529 ] and South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805 [ 104 L.Ed.2d 876 , 109 S.Ct. 2207 ] by referring to the impact the murders would have on the victims' friends and relatives. | 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.
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.