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.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1965–2022 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 sentences2022VI, § 13.)” (Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th at pp. 59–60.) Both parties agree that that the test of harmless error in this setting is governed by People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson). 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev | 3 | 3 |
Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Willis H.green2 sentences2016She also claims she was entitled to an inquiry on her request for “a hearing for a new attorney.” The claims lack merit. 23 “Under the standard test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [a parent] is required to demonstrate both that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and resulting prejudice. [Citation.] A violation of the right of effective counsel is reviewed under the test of harmless error. [Citation.] ‘Thus the parent must demonstrate that it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been re 2016“Under the standard test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [a parent] is required to demonstrate both that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and resulting prejudice. [Citation.] A violation of the right of effective counsel is reviewed under the test of harmless error. [Citation.] ‘Thus the parent must demonstrate that it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” ’ [Citation.]” (In re N.M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 253 , 270.) “In general, the proper wa | 2 | 2 |
People v. Saldanagreen2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused ( People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) [8] The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the California Constitution, as follows: "That a `miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, `after an examination of the entire cause, includi 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused ( People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) [8] The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the California Constitution, as follows: "That a `miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, `after an examination of the entire cause, includi | 2 | 2 |
People v. Campbellgreen2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused ( People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) [8] The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the California Constitution, as follows: "That a `miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, `after an examination of the entire cause, includi 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused ( People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) [8] The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the California Constitution, as follows: "That a `miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, `after an examination of the entire cause, includi | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev | 2 | 2 |
People v. Finngreen2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev | 2 | 2 |
People v. Herreragreen2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused ( People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) [8] The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the California Constitution, as follows: "That a `miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, `after an examination of the entire cause, includi 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused ( People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) [8] The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the California Constitution, as follows: "That a `miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, `after an examination of the entire cause, includi | 2 | 2 |
People v. Sotogreen2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev | 2 | 2 |
People v. Clappergreen2 sentences1965In the first place, it should be pointed out that the testimony of the victim at the trial in which she identified the defendant as the perpetrator, if the record is otherwise untainted, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. ( People v. Clapper (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 34, 36 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 105 ]; People v. McLaine, supra, 204 Cal. App.2d 96, 103-104 ; People v. Wyback (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 754, 755-758 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 501 ]; People v. Jackson, supra, 183 Cal. App.2d 562, 566-568 ; People v. Robinson (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 310, 312-313 [ 303 P.2d 633 ].) It being alleged herein, however, th 1965In the first place, it should be pointed out that the testimony of the victim at the trial in which she identified the defendant as the perpetrator, if the record is otherwise untainted, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. ( People v. Clapper (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 34, 36 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 105 ]; People v. McLaine, supra, 204 Cal. App.2d 96, 103-104 ; People v. Wyback (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 754, 755-758 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 501 ]; People v. Jackson, supra, 183 Cal. App.2d 562, 566-568 ; People v. Robinson (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 310, 312-313 [ 303 P.2d 633 ].) It being alleged herein, however, th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wybackgreen2 sentences1965In the first place, it should be pointed out that the testimony of the victim at the trial in which she identified the defendant as the perpetrator, if the record is otherwise untainted, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. ( People v. Clapper (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 34, 36 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 105 ]; People v. McLaine, supra, 204 Cal. App.2d 96, 103-104 ; People v. Wyback (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 754, 755-758 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 501 ]; People v. Jackson, supra, 183 Cal. App.2d 562, 566-568 ; People v. Robinson (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 310, 312-313 [ 303 P.2d 633 ].) It being alleged herein, however, th 1965In the first place, it should be pointed out that the testimony of the victim at the trial in which she identified the defendant as the perpetrator, if the record is otherwise untainted, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. ( People v. Clapper (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 34, 36 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 105 ]; People v. McLaine, supra, 204 Cal. App.2d 96, 103-104 ; People v. Wyback (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 754, 755-758 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 501 ]; People v. Jackson, supra, 183 Cal. App.2d 562, 566-568 ; People v. Robinson (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 310, 312-313 [ 303 P.2d 633 ].) It being alleged herein, however, th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1965In the first place, it should be pointed out that the testimony of the victim at the trial in which she identified the defendant as the perpetrator, if the record is otherwise untainted, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. ( People v. Clapper (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 34, 36 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 105 ]; People v. McLaine, supra, 204 Cal. App.2d 96, 103-104 ; People v. Wyback (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 754, 755-758 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 501 ]; People v. Jackson, supra, 183 Cal. App.2d 562, 566-568 ; People v. Robinson (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 310, 312-313 [ 303 P.2d 633 ].) It being alleged herein, however, th 1965In the first place, it should be pointed out that the testimony of the victim at the trial in which she identified the defendant as the perpetrator, if the record is otherwise untainted, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. ( People v. Clapper (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 34, 36 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 105 ]; People v. McLaine, supra, 204 Cal. App.2d 96, 103-104 ; People v. Wyback (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 754, 755-758 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 501 ]; People v. Jackson, supra, 183 Cal. App.2d 562, 566-568 ; People v. Robinson (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 310, 312-313 [ 303 P.2d 633 ].) It being alleged herein, however, th | 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 Nm
green
2 sentences2016(In re N.M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 253 , 270.) “A violation of the right to effective counsel is reviewed under the test of harmless error. [Citation.] ‘Thus the parent must demonstrate that it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) Father argues that there is no explanation for counsel’s failure to object to Smith’s representation of Aiden. 2016“Under the standard test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [a parent] is required to demonstrate both that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and resulting prejudice. [Citation.] A violation of the right of effective counsel is reviewed under the test of harmless error. [Citation.] ‘Thus the parent must demonstrate that it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” ’ [Citation.]” (In re N.M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 253 , 270.) “In general, the proper wa | 4 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Arturo A.
green
2 sentences2016She also claims she was entitled to an inquiry on her request for “a hearing for a new attorney.” The claims lack merit. 23 “Under the standard test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [a parent] is required to demonstrate both that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and resulting prejudice. [Citation.] A violation of the right of effective counsel is reviewed under the test of harmless error. [Citation.] ‘Thus the parent must demonstrate that it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been re 2016“Under the standard test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [a parent] is required to demonstrate both that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and resulting prejudice. [Citation.] A violation of the right of effective counsel is reviewed under the test of harmless error. [Citation.] ‘Thus the parent must demonstrate that it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” ’ [Citation.]” (In re N.M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 253 , 270.) “In general, the proper wa | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Darlice C.
green
2 sentences2016(In re Darlice C. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 459, 463 .) Here, it is not hard to imagine reasons why counsel did not request a continuance for lack of sufficient notice or timely service of the report. 2016(In re Darlice C. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 459, 463 .) Here, there could be any number of reasons trial counsel did not litigate the alleged lack of notice issue, none of which are dispelled by the record. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Dorado
green
2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused ( People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) [8] The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the California Constitution, as follows: "That a `miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, `after an examination of the entire cause, includi 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev | 2 | 1965–1965 |
People v. Stewart
green
2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev | 2 | 1965–1965 |
People v. McLaine
green
2 sentences1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused ( People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) [8] The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4 1/2 of the California Constitution, as follows: "That a `miscarriage of justice' should be declared only when the court, `after an examination of the entire cause, includi 1965Under such circumstances the incriminatory statements cannot be used against the accused (People v. Dorado, supra, 62 Cal.2d 338, 353-355 ; People v. Stewart (1965) 62 Cal.2d 571 , 576 and 581 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 400 P.2d 97 ]), and their admission requires reversal unless it is harmless error. (62 Cal.2d at p. 356.) The test of harmless error has been defined, in elaboration of the provisions of article VI, section 4% of the California Constitution, as follows: “That a ‘miscarriage of justice’ should be declared only when the court, ‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the ev | 2 | 1965–1965 |
People v. Sakarias
green
1 sentence2009We shall also apply the test of harmless error set out in People v. Sakarias, supra, 22 Cal.4th 596 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Reeder
green
2 sentences2003Each excluded witness was not allowed to "stand face to face with the jury, in order that they [could] look at him and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he [gave] his testimony whether he [was] worthy of belief." ( People v. Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1155 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 .) Considering all circumstances we conclude the exclusion of the defense witnesses deprived defendant of his right to present a defense in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law. [6] Exclusion of the witnesses therefore constituted an 2003Each excluded witness was not allowed to "stand face to face with the jury, in order that they [could] look at him and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he [gave] his testimony whether he [was] worthy of belief." ( People v. Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1155 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 .) Considering all circumstances we conclude the exclusion of the defense witnesses deprived defendant of his right to present a defense in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law. [6] Exclusion of the witnesses therefore constituted an | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2003Each excluded witness was not allowed to "stand face to face with the jury, in order that they [could] look at him and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he [gave] his testimony whether he [was] worthy of belief." ( People v. Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1155 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 .) Considering all circumstances we conclude the exclusion of the defense witnesses deprived defendant of his right to present a defense in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law. [6] Exclusion of the witnesses therefore constituted an 2003Each excluded witness was not allowed to "stand face to face with the jury, in order that they [could] look at him and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he [gave] his testimony whether he [was] worthy of belief." ( People v. Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1155 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 .) Considering all circumstances we conclude the exclusion of the defense witnesses deprived defendant of his right to present a defense in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law. [6] Exclusion of the witnesses therefore constituted an | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Arreola
green
2 sentences2003Each excluded witness was not allowed to "stand face to face with the jury, in order that they [could] look at him and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he [gave] his testimony whether he [was] worthy of belief." ( People v. Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1155 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 .) Considering all circumstances we conclude the exclusion of the defense witnesses deprived defendant of his right to present a defense in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law. [6] Exclusion of the witnesses therefore constituted an 2003Each excluded witness was not allowed to "stand face to face with the jury, in order that they [could] look at him and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he [gave] his testimony whether he [was] worthy of belief." ( People v. Arreola, supra, 7 Cal.4th 1144, 1155 , 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 631 , 875 P.2d 736 .) Considering all circumstances we conclude the exclusion of the defense witnesses deprived defendant of his right to present a defense in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process of law. [6] Exclusion of the witnesses therefore constituted an | 1 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1965In the first place, it should be pointed out that the testimony of the victim at the trial in which she identified the defendant as the perpetrator, if the record is otherwise untainted, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. ( People v. Clapper (1965) 233 Cal. App.2d 34, 36 [ 43 Cal. Rptr. 105 ]; People v. McLaine, supra, 204 Cal. App.2d 96, 103-104 ; People v. Wyback (1961) 193 Cal. App.2d 754, 755-758 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 501 ]; People v. Jackson, supra, 183 Cal. App.2d 562, 566-568 ; People v. Robinson (1956) 146 Cal. App.2d 310, 312-313 [ 303 P.2d 633 ].) It being alleged herein, however, th | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.