equal privilege in California

2006Ignoring the reasons Brown repudiated the doctrine of separate but equal, which rested heavily on its stigmatizing effect ( Brown, supra, 347 U.S. at p. 493 , 74 S.Ct. 686 ), the Virginia court dismissed Brown as inapposite. ( Loving v. Commonwealth, supra, 147 S.E.2d at pp. 80-81.) Because the reference in Plessy to the validity of prohibitions of interracial marriage was not explicitly contradicted by Brown, the court felt free to rely on Plessy in validating restrictions on interracial marriage and declaring that they could be changed only by the Legislature.

2006Ignoring the reasons Brown repudiated the doctrine of separate but equal, which rested heavily on its stigmatizing effect ( Brown, supra, 347 U.S. at p. 493 , 74 S.Ct. 686 ), the Virginia court dismissed Brown as inapposite. ( Loving v. Commonwealth, supra, 147 S.E.2d at pp. 80-81.) Because the reference in Plessy to the validity of prohibitions of interracial marriage was not explicitly contradicted by Brown, the court felt free to rely on Plessy in validating restrictions on interracial marriage and declaring that they could be changed only by the Legislature.

2022(See People v. Marsh (1962) 58 Cal.2d 732, 736 (Marsh) [“It is elementary that if the prosecution can introduce evidence of a required specific intent, the defendant must be given the equal privilege of showing the lack of such intent.”].) Third, the trial court erred when it adopted the prosecution’s position that the defense evidence of Tony’s so-called “prior bad acts” was character evidence offered to show Tony’s propensity for violence, and that to be admissible for this purpose, the defense would first have to establish a prima facie case of a “ ‘self-defense-type theory.’ ” This ruling

2004For support, the city points to a passage in the majority opinion in Southern Pacific , which asks rhetorically: "[W]hen the United States Supreme Court, for example, repudiates the separate but equal doctrine established by the statutes of one state, should the school boards of other states continue to apply identical statutes until a court declares them invalid [?]" ( Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d 308, 311, fn. 2 , 134 Cal.Rptr. 189 , 556 P.2d 289 .) Whatever force this argument might have in a case in which a governing decision previously has found an identical statute unconstitutional

2004For support, the city points to a passage in the majority opinion in Southern Pacific , which asks rhetorically: "[W]hen the United States Supreme Court, for example, repudiates the separate but equal doctrine established by the statutes of one state, should the school boards of other states continue to apply identical statutes until a court declares them invalid [?]" ( Southern Pacific, supra, 18 Cal.3d 308, 311, fn. 2 , 134 Cal.Rptr. 189 , 556 P.2d 289 .) Whatever force this argument might have in a case in which a governing decision previously has found an identical statute unconstitutional

1964(People v. Valdes, 155 Cal.App.2d 613, 615 [ 318 P.2d 118 ] ; People v. Crowder, 126 Cal.App.2d 578, 585 [ 272 P.2d 775 ].) This court said in the Valdes case ( 155 Cal.App.2d, at p. 615 ) : “There can be no forgery unless the evidence justifies reasonable conclusions that the signer had knowledge of his lack of authority and intended to commit a fraud.” In a ease wherein one of the charges was forgery, People v. Geibel, 93 Cal.App.2d 147 , Justice White stated at page 175 [ 208 P.2d 743 ] : “It follows as a matter of course that appellant was entitled to rebut or controvert any of the evidenc

1964(People v. Valdes, 155 Cal.App.2d 613, 615 [ 318 P.2d 118 ] ; People v. Crowder, 126 Cal.App.2d 578, 585 [ 272 P.2d 775 ].) This court said in the Valdes case ( 155 Cal.App.2d, at p. 615 ) : “There can be no forgery unless the evidence justifies reasonable conclusions that the signer had knowledge of his lack of authority and intended to commit a fraud.” In a ease wherein one of the charges was forgery, People v. Geibel, 93 Cal.App.2d 147 , Justice White stated at page 175 [ 208 P.2d 743 ] : “It follows as a matter of course that appellant was entitled to rebut or controvert any of the evidenc

1964(People v. Valdes, 155 Cal.App.2d 613, 615 [ 318 P.2d 118 ] ; People v. Crowder, 126 Cal.App.2d 578, 585 [ 272 P.2d 775 ].) This court said in the Valdes case ( 155 Cal.App.2d, at p. 615 ) : “There can be no forgery unless the evidence justifies reasonable conclusions that the signer had knowledge of his lack of authority and intended to commit a fraud.” In a ease wherein one of the charges was forgery, People v. Geibel, 93 Cal.App.2d 147 , Justice White stated at page 175 [ 208 P.2d 743 ] : “It follows as a matter of course that appellant was entitled to rebut or controvert any of the evidenc

1964(People v. Valdes, 155 Cal.App.2d 613, 615 [ 318 P.2d 118 ] ; People v. Crowder, 126 Cal.App.2d 578, 585 [ 272 P.2d 775 ].) This court said in the Valdes case ( 155 Cal.App.2d, at p. 615 ) : “There can be no forgery unless the evidence justifies reasonable conclusions that the signer had knowledge of his lack of authority and intended to commit a fraud.” In a ease wherein one of the charges was forgery, People v. Geibel, 93 Cal.App.2d 147 , Justice White stated at page 175 [ 208 P.2d 743 ] : “It follows as a matter of course that appellant was entitled to rebut or controvert any of the evidenc

1962It is elementary that if the prosecution can introduce evidence of a required specific intent, the defendant must be given the equal privilege of showing the lack of such intent (People v. Becker, 137 Cal.App. 349, 352 [ 30 P.2d 562 ]). [4a] In the instant case the conspiracy, the making of the false representations, and the obtaining of money by the defendants was proved by overwhelming evidence.

1962It is elementary that if the prosecution can introduce evidence of a required specific intent, the defendant must be given the equal privilege of showing the lack of such intent (People v. Becker, 137 Cal.App. 349, 352 [ 30 P.2d 562 ]). [4a] In the instant case the conspiracy, the making of the false representations, and the obtaining of money by the defendants was proved by overwhelming evidence.