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.
8 California opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Enmund v. Floridagreen2 sentences2020(Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782, 798 (Enmund).) Subsequently, in Tison v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that the Enmund standard of culpability that must be met to impose the death penalty is “major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life[.]” (Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 158 (Tison).) The court stated, “A critical facet of the individualized determination of culpability required in capital cases is the mental state with which the defendant commits the crime. 2020(Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782, 798 (Enmund).) Subsequently, in Tison v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that the Enmund standard of culpability that must be met to impose the death penalty is “major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life[.]” (Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 158 (Tison).) The court stated, “A critical facet of the individualized determination of culpability required in capital cases is the mental state with which the defendant commits the crime. | 1 | 2 |
Cabana v. Bullockgreen2 sentences2005"Evidence that the defendant is the actual killer and guilty of felony murder ... establishes `a degree of culpability sufficient under the Eighth Amendment to permit defendant's execution.'" ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1016, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ; People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 632 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 874 , 802 P.2d 376 ( Hayes ).) Moreover, a jury's guilty verdict satisfies the requirements under Enmund , even though the trial court's instructions did not explicitly require it to find the Enmund factors, when "the theory on which the case was tried and the e 2005"Evidence that the defendant is the actual killer and guilty of felony murder ... establishes `a degree of culpability sufficient under the Eighth Amendment to permit defendant's execution.'" ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1016, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ; People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 632 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 874 , 802 P.2d 376 ( Hayes ).) Moreover, a jury's guilty verdict satisfies the requirements under Enmund , even though the trial court's instructions did not explicitly require it to find the Enmund factors, when "the theory on which the case was tried and the e | 1 | 2 |
Tison v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2020(Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782, 798 (Enmund).) Subsequently, in Tison v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that the Enmund standard of culpability that must be met to impose the death penalty is “major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life[.]” (Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 158 (Tison).) The court stated, “A critical facet of the individualized determination of culpability required in capital cases is the mental state with which the defendant commits the crime. 2020(Enmund v. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782, 798 (Enmund).) Subsequently, in Tison v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that the Enmund standard of culpability that must be met to impose the death penalty is “major participation in the felony committed, combined with reckless indifference to human life[.]” (Tison v. Arizona (1987) 481 U.S. 137, 158 (Tison).) The court stated, “A critical facet of the individualized determination of culpability required in capital cases is the mental state with which the defendant commits the crime. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2005"Evidence that the defendant is the actual killer and guilty of felony murder ... establishes `a degree of culpability sufficient under the Eighth Amendment to permit defendant's execution.'" ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1016, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ; People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 632 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 874 , 802 P.2d 376 ( Hayes ).) Moreover, a jury's guilty verdict satisfies the requirements under Enmund , even though the trial court's instructions did not explicitly require it to find the Enmund factors, when "the theory on which the case was tried and the e 2005"Evidence that the defendant is the actual killer and guilty of felony murder ... establishes `a degree of culpability sufficient under the Eighth Amendment to permit defendant's execution.'" ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1016, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ; People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 632 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 874 , 802 P.2d 376 ( Hayes ).) Moreover, a jury's guilty verdict satisfies the requirements under Enmund , even though the trial court's instructions did not explicitly require it to find the Enmund factors, when "the theory on which the case was tried and the e | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smitheygreen2 sentences2005"Evidence that the defendant is the actual killer and guilty of felony murder ... establishes `a degree of culpability sufficient under the Eighth Amendment to permit defendant's execution.'" ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1016, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ; People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 632 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 874 , 802 P.2d 376 ( Hayes ).) Moreover, a jury's guilty verdict satisfies the requirements under Enmund , even though the trial court's instructions did not explicitly require it to find the Enmund factors, when "the theory on which the case was tried and the e 2005"Evidence that the defendant is the actual killer and guilty of felony murder ... establishes `a degree of culpability sufficient under the Eighth Amendment to permit defendant's execution.'" ( People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1016, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ; People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 632 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 874 , 802 P.2d 376 ( Hayes ).) Moreover, a jury's guilty verdict satisfies the requirements under Enmund , even though the trial court's instructions did not explicitly require it to find the Enmund factors, when "the theory on which the case was tried and the e | 1 | 1 |
People v. Silvagreen2 sentences1991(People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 243-244 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 55 , 763 P.2d 906 ]; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 626 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 573 , 754 P.2d 1070 ].) Since the special finding in this case demonstrates that the jury must have rejected defendant’s explanation of the Picard murder, any instructional error on this point was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 .) G. 1991(People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 243-244 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 55 , 763 P.2d 906 ]; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 626 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 573 , 754 P.2d 1070 ].) Since the special finding in this case demonstrates that the jury must have rejected defendant’s explanation of the Picard murder, any instructional error on this point was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 .) G. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Adcoxgreen2 sentences1991(People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 243-244 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 55 , 763 P.2d 906 ]; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 626 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 573 , 754 P.2d 1070 ].) Since the special finding in this case demonstrates that the jury must have rejected defendant’s explanation of the Picard murder, any instructional error on this point was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 .) G. 1991(People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 243-244 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 55 , 763 P.2d 906 ]; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 626 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 573 , 754 P.2d 1070 ].) Since the special finding in this case demonstrates that the jury must have rejected defendant’s explanation of the Picard murder, any instructional error on this point was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 .) G. | 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. Banks
green
2 sentences2019As a matter of state statute, then, the Tison - Enmund standard is 'applicable to all allegations of a felony-murder special circumstance, regardless of whether the People seek and exact the death penalty or a sentence of life without parole.' [Citation.] Accordingly, the considerations that informed the Supreme Court's distinctions between differing levels of culpability in Tison v. Arizona [citation] should guide juries faced with making those same distinctions under section 190.2 [, subdivision ](d)." ( Banks , supra , 61 Cal.4th at pp. 801-804 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 , 351 P.3d 330 ], fn. om 2019As a matter of state statute, then, the Tison - Enmund standard is 'applicable to all allegations of a felony-murder special circumstance, regardless of whether the People seek and exact the death penalty or a sentence of life without parole.' [Citation.] Accordingly, the considerations that informed the Supreme Court's distinctions between differing levels of culpability in Tison v. Arizona [citation] should guide juries faced with making those same distinctions under section 190.2 [, subdivision ](d)." ( Banks , supra , 61 Cal.4th at pp. 801-804 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 208 , 351 P.3d 330 ], fn. om | 2 | 2016–2019 |
People v. Young
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 162-164; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1205 .) And this case does not involve the death penalty, an important element of the Enmund analysis. 2014(People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 162-164; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1205 .) And this case does not involve the death penalty, an important element of the Enmund analysis. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Lancaster
green
2 sentences2014(See People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 163 ; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 192-193 ; People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 81-90 .) In Dillon, a 17-year-old and several others went to a marijuana farm to steal some marijuana. 2014(See People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 163 ; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 192-193 ; People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 81-90 .) In Dillon, a 17-year-old and several others went to a marijuana farm to steal some marijuana. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Letner and Tobin
green
2 sentences2014(See People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 163 ; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 192-193 ; People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 81-90 .) In Dillon, a 17-year-old and several others went to a marijuana farm to steal some marijuana. 2014(See People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 163 ; People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 192-193 ; People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 81-90 .) In Dillon, a 17-year-old and several others went to a marijuana farm to steal some marijuana. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Contreras
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 162-164; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1205 .) And this case does not involve the death penalty, an important element of the Enmund analysis. 2014(People v. Contreras, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 162-164; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1205 .) And this case does not involve the death penalty, an important element of the Enmund analysis. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1991(People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 243-244 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 55 , 763 P.2d 906 ]; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 626 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 573 , 754 P.2d 1070 ].) Since the special finding in this case demonstrates that the jury must have rejected defendant’s explanation of the Picard murder, any instructional error on this point was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 .) G. 1991(People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 243-244 [ 253 Cal.Rptr. 55 , 763 P.2d 906 ]; People v. Silva (1988) 45 Cal.3d 604, 626 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 573 , 754 P.2d 1070 ].) Since the special finding in this case demonstrates that the jury must have rejected defendant’s explanation of the Picard murder, any instructional error on this point was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, (Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 .) G. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Garcia
green
2 sentences1985(People v. Garcia, supra, 36 Cal.3d 539 ; Carlos v. Superior Court, supra.) The special circumstance cases also follow decisions of the United States Supreme Court holding that the state is required to prove all the elements of any offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 1985(People v. Garcia, supra, 36 Cal.3d 539 ; Carlos v. Superior Court, supra.) The special circumstance cases also follow decisions of the United States Supreme Court holding that the state is required to prove all the elements of any offense beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Spears
green
2 sentences1983Moreover, *155 by reason of the majority's misapplication of the holding in People v. Spears (1983) 33 Cal.3d 279 [ 188 Cal. Rptr. 454 , 655 P.2d 1289 ], discussed in part 2 hereof, this defendant no longer faces even a lesser sentence of life imprisonment without parole. ( Ante , pp. 153-154.) It is my view that the Enmund rule, plus Spears , make it entirely inappropriate to discuss, as the majority does at length, whether death or life imprisonment without parole properly may be imposed in the absence of proof of an intent to kill. 1983Moreover, *155 by reason of the majority's misapplication of the holding in People v. Spears (1983) 33 Cal.3d 279 [ 188 Cal. Rptr. 454 , 655 P.2d 1289 ], discussed in part 2 hereof, this defendant no longer faces even a lesser sentence of life imprisonment without parole. ( Ante , pp. 153-154.) It is my view that the Enmund rule, plus Spears , make it entirely inappropriate to discuss, as the majority does at length, whether death or life imprisonment without parole properly may be imposed in the absence of proof of an intent to kill. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.