8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1928–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ashergreen2 sentences1970(People v. Thomas, 58 Cal.2d 121, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 373 P.2d 97 ]; People v. Asher, 273 Cal.App.2d 876, 895 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 885 ].) *110 The second requested instruction is that known as CALJIC (California Jury Instructions-Criminal) No. 35 (Rev.). 1970(People v. Thomas, 58 Cal.2d 121, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 373 P.2d 97 ]; People v. Asher, 273 Cal.App.2d 876, 895 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 885 ].) *110 The second requested instruction is that known as CALJIC (California Jury Instructions-Criminal) No. 35 (Rev.). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1970(People v. Thomas, 58 Cal.2d 121, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 373 P.2d 97 ]; People v. Asher, 273 Cal.App.2d 876, 895 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 885 ].) *110 The second requested instruction is that known as CALJIC (California Jury Instructions-Criminal) No. 35 (Rev.). 1970(People v. Thomas, 58 Cal.2d 121, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 373 P.2d 97 ]; People v. Asher, 273 Cal.App.2d 876, 895 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 885 ].) *110 The second requested instruction is that known as CALJIC (California Jury Instructions-Criminal) No. 35 (Rev.). | 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. Kelly
green
2 sentences2014A qualified patient may possess amounts of marijuana consistent with this article.” 13 Third requested instruction: “Qualified patients who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11359, or 11360.” The prosecution objected to only the second requested instruction, based on People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008 , in which the Supreme Court struck down the marijuana limits provided for in the instruction and h 2014A qualified patient may possess amounts of marijuana consistent with this article.” 13 Third requested instruction: “Qualified patients who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11359, or 11360.” The prosecution objected to only the second requested instruction, based on People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008 , in which the Supreme Court struck down the marijuana limits provided for in the instruction and h | 3 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Earp
green
2 sentences2020(Ibid.; People v. Gutierrez, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 824-825; People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 886-887.) Therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to give the second requested instruction. 2020(Ibid.; People v. Gutierrez, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 824-825; People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 886-887.) Therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to give the second requested instruction. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2020(Ibid.; People v. Gutierrez, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 824-825; People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 886-887.) Therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to give the second requested instruction. 2020(Ibid.; People v. Gutierrez, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 824-825; People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 886-887.) Therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to give the second requested instruction. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Flannel
red
1 sentence1984II Defendants next contend, in reliance upon People v. Flannel, supra, 25 Cal.3d 668 , they were entitled to a sua sponte instruction to the effect if they held an honest but unreasonable belief their lives were in danger, the element of malice necessary to sustain the conviction for assault with a deadly weapon was negated. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Dierman v. Providence Hospital
green
1 sentence1956The second requested instruction has the support of Dierman v. Providence Hospital, supra, 31 Cal.2d 290 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
People v. Miles
green
2 sentences1928The jury was instructed that “a defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved,” and that “in ease of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.” A situation exactly like the *305 one here presented was before the supreme court in People v. Miles, 143 Cal. 636 [ 77 Pac. 666 ], It was said in the opinion there rendered that “as reasonable men of ordinary intelligence, the jurors must have known that the presumption of defendants’ innocence mentioned by the court had reference to the entire trial and to al 1928The jury was instructed that “a defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved,” and that “in ease of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.” A situation exactly like the *305 one here presented was before the supreme court in People v. Miles, 143 Cal. 636 [ 77 Pac. 666 ], It was said in the opinion there rendered that “as reasonable men of ordinary intelligence, the jurors must have known that the presumption of defendants’ innocence mentioned by the court had reference to the entire trial and to al | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.