reasonable doubt applies to proof doctrine (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

reasonable doubt applies to proof doctrine in California

8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1949–1968 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.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Klinkenberggreen
calctapp · 1949 · cited in 5 California opinions naming this issue, 1951–1965
2 sentences

1965(People v. Nunn, 65 Cal.App.2d 188, 195 [ 150 P.2d 476 ]; People v. Parker, 119 Cal.App. 246 . 251-2 [ 6 P.2d 82 ].) The doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to proof of guilt and not to the establishment of each incident or event inculpating the defendant.” (People v. Klinkenberg (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 608, 632 [ 204 P.2d 47, 613 ].) In criticizing a statement in a refused instruction which stated that “. . . each fact which is essential to complete a chain of circumstances that will establish the defendant’s *300 guilt . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court in People v. Mansour (1951) 103

1965(People v. Nunn, 65 Cal.App.2d 188, 195 [ 150 P.2d 476 ]; People v. Parker, 119 Cal.App. 246 . 251-2 [ 6 P.2d 82 ].) The doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to proof of guilt and not to the establishment of each incident or event inculpating the defendant.” (People v. Klinkenberg (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 608, 632 [ 204 P.2d 47, 613 ].) In criticizing a statement in a refused instruction which stated that “. . . each fact which is essential to complete a chain of circumstances that will establish the defendant’s *300 guilt . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court in People v. Mansour (1951) 103

55
People v. Nunngreen
calctapp · 1944 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1949–1968
2 sentences

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

34
People v. Mansourgreen
calctapp · 1951 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1954–1965
2 sentences

1965(People v. Nunn, 65 Cal.App.2d 188, 195 [ 150 P.2d 476 ]; People v. Parker, 119 Cal.App. 246 . 251-2 [ 6 P.2d 82 ].) The doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to proof of guilt and not to the establishment of each incident or event inculpating the defendant.” (People v. Klinkenberg (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 608, 632 [ 204 P.2d 47, 613 ].) In criticizing a statement in a refused instruction which stated that “. . . each fact which is essential to complete a chain of circumstances that will establish the defendant’s *300 guilt . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court in People v. Mansour (1951) 103

1965(People v. Nunn, 65 Cal.App.2d 188, 195 [ 150 P.2d 476 ]; People v. Parker, 119 Cal.App. 246 . 251-2 [ 6 P.2d 82 ].) The doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to proof of guilt and not to the establishment of each incident or event inculpating the defendant.” (People v. Klinkenberg (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 608, 632 [ 204 P.2d 47, 613 ].) In criticizing a statement in a refused instruction which stated that “. . . each fact which is essential to complete a chain of circumstances that will establish the defendant’s *300 guilt . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court in People v. Mansour (1951) 103

22
People v. Krossgreen
calctapp · 1952 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1953–1968
2 sentences

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

12
People v. Parkergreen
calctapp · 1931 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1949–1965
2 sentences

1965(People v. Nunn, 65 Cal.App.2d 188, 195 [ 150 P.2d 476 ]; People v. Parker, 119 Cal.App. 246 . 251-2 [ 6 P.2d 82 ].) The doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to proof of guilt and not to the establishment of each incident or event inculpating the defendant.” (People v. Klinkenberg (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 608, 632 [ 204 P.2d 47, 613 ].) In criticizing a statement in a refused instruction which stated that “. . . each fact which is essential to complete a chain of circumstances that will establish the defendant’s *300 guilt . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court in People v. Mansour (1951) 103

1965(People v. Nunn, 65 Cal.App.2d 188, 195 [ 150 P.2d 476 ]; People v. Parker, 119 Cal.App. 246 . 251-2 [ 6 P.2d 82 ].) The doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to proof of guilt and not to the establishment of each incident or event inculpating the defendant.” (People v. Klinkenberg (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 608, 632 [ 204 P.2d 47, 613 ].) In criticizing a statement in a refused instruction which stated that “. . . each fact which is essential to complete a chain of circumstances that will establish the defendant’s *300 guilt . . . beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court in People v. Mansour (1951) 103

12
People v. Rosalesgreen
cal · 1968 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

11
People v. Hillerygreen
cal · 1965 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968
2 sentences

1968As is said in People v. Hillery, 62 Cal.2d 692, 702-703 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 401 P.2d 382 ] : “Moreover, ‘It is the trier of fact, not the appellate court, that must be convinced of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

1968As is said in People v. Hillery, 62 Cal.2d 692, 702-703 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 30 , 401 P.2d 382 ] : “Moreover, ‘It is the trier of fact, not the appellate court, that must be convinced of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

11
People v. Eddygreen
calctapp · 1954 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1966–1966
2 sentences

1966The doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to proof of guilt and not to the proving of each event asserted to be a link in the inculpating chain of incidents [citations].’’ (People v. Eddy (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 826, 835 [ 268 P.2d 47 ].) The circumstances are: (1) Defendant was caught in the act of using a metal tine to release the moneys in the box, the instrument commonly used by “staffers. ” (2) defendant had $2.10 in dimes in his possession, (3) there was 40 cents in the coin return chute when defendant was arrested, indicating that he had caused that amount to drop down, (4) for a year, the

1966The doctrine of reasonable doubt applies to proof of guilt and not to the proving of each event asserted to be a link in the inculpating chain of incidents [citations].’’ (People v. Eddy (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 826, 835 [ 268 P.2d 47 ].) The circumstances are: (1) Defendant was caught in the act of using a metal tine to release the moneys in the box, the instrument commonly used by “staffers. ” (2) defendant had $2.10 in dimes in his possession, (3) there was 40 cents in the coin return chute when defendant was arrested, indicating that he had caused that amount to drop down, (4) for a year, the

11
People v. McGillgreen
calctapp · 1935 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1949–1949
2 sentences

1949(People v. McGill, 10 Cal.App.2d 155, 160 [ 51 P.2d 433 ].) A reasonable doubt that would warrant acquittal is one that results or arises from “a consideration of all the evidence” in the ease.

1949(People v. McGill, 10 Cal.App.2d 155, 160 [ 51 P.2d 433 ].) A reasonable doubt that would warrant acquittal is one that results or arises from “a consideration of all the evidence” in the ease.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Zammora green
calctapp · 1944
2 sentences

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

11968–1968
People v. Robinson green
cal · 1965
2 sentences

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

1968As is said in the Flores opinion, supra, at page 567: “If defendant had appropriately objected, the prosecution might have been able to show that the officer complied with the notification requirements of section 1531 before entering the apartment [appellant’s residence] or that special circumstances justified an unannounced entry.” (See also People v. Rosales, 68 Cal.2d 299, 306 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ] ; People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 762 , 402 P.2d 834 ].) The appellant says that “the evidence as a whole was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding him guilty o

11968–1968
People v. Mahach green
calctapp · 1924
2 sentences

1966Defendant relies principally upon People v. Mahach (1924) 65 Cal.App. 359 [ 224 P. 130 ], where it was held that the trial court properly excluded testimony to the effect that there was an open, well-marked trail to the spot where defendant three months before had left a suitcase lost from the robbery.

1966Defendant relies principally upon People v. Mahach (1924) 65 Cal.App. 359 [ 224 P. 130 ], where it was held that the trial court properly excluded testimony to the effect that there was an open, well-marked trail to the spot where defendant three months before had left a suitcase lost from the robbery.

11966–1966

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check