during hearing in California

2023Under the Totality of the Circumstances Perry Was Not in Custody for Purposes of Miranda To determine if Perry was in custody for Miranda purposes, we consider “all the circumstances regarding the interrogation,” to determine if they constituted a “‘“restraint on freedom of movement” of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’” (Stansbury, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 830 .) Relevant factors include: “whether contact with law enforcement was initiated by the police or the person interrogated, and if by the police, whether the person voluntarily agreed to an interview; whether the express purpose

2023Under the Totality of the Circumstances Perry Was Not in Custody for Purposes of Miranda To determine if Perry was in custody for Miranda purposes, we consider “all the circumstances regarding the interrogation,” to determine if they constituted a “‘“restraint on freedom of movement” of the degree associated with a formal arrest.’” (Stansbury, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 830 .) Relevant factors include: “whether contact with law enforcement was initiated by the police or the person interrogated, and if by the police, whether the person voluntarily agreed to an interview; whether the express purpose

2018"In reviewing a motion for a new trial, the trial court must weigh the evidence independently. [Citation.] It is, however, guided by a presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict and proceedings supporting it. [Citation.] The trial court 'should [not] disregard the verdict ... but instead ... should consider the proper weight to be accorded to the evidence and then decide whether or not, in its opinion, there is sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict.' " ( Id . at pp. 523-524, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826 , 896 P.2d 119 .) Although Watts did not provide the full citation to Davis

2018"In reviewing a motion for a new trial, the trial court must weigh the evidence independently. [Citation.] It is, however, guided by a presumption in favor of the correctness of the verdict and proceedings supporting it. [Citation.] The trial court 'should [not] disregard the verdict ... but instead ... should consider the proper weight to be accorded to the evidence and then decide whether or not, in its opinion, there is sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict.' " ( Id . at pp. 523-524, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 826 , 896 P.2d 119 .) Although Watts did not provide the full citation to Davis

2017That’s not what I do, okay.” On appeal, Watts contends that the trial court “completely misunderstood the scope of its authority and its duty to independently reweigh the evidence supporting the gang enhancement allegation.” For example, in People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245 , the appellate court observed that “[t]he trial court’s duty is to review the evidence independently and satisfy itself that the evidence provide the full citation to Davis when arguing before the trial court during the hearing, he did cite the case correctly in his new trial motion. 13 as a whole is sufficient

2017That’s not what I do, okay.” On appeal, Watts contends that the trial court “completely misunderstood the scope of its authority and its duty to independently reweigh the evidence supporting the gang enhancement allegation.” For example, in People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245 , the appellate court observed that “[t]he trial court’s duty is to review the evidence independently and satisfy itself that the evidence provide the full citation to Davis when arguing before the trial court during the hearing, he did cite the case correctly in his new trial motion. 13 as a whole is sufficient

2017This court has explained that an objection must " 'fairly inform the trial court, as well as the party offering the evidence, of the specific reason or reasons the objecting party believes the evidence should be excluded, so the party offering the evidence can respond appropriately and the court can make a fully informed ruling.' " ( People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555 , 609, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 580 , 161 P.3d 104 ; see Evid.

2017This court has explained that an objection must " 'fairly inform the trial court, as well as the party offering the evidence, of the specific reason or reasons the objecting party believes the evidence should be excluded, so the party offering the evidence can respond appropriately and the court can make a fully informed ruling.' " ( People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555 , 609, 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 580 , 161 P.3d 104 ; see Evid.

2002Miranda/Harris: admission of defendant’s extrajudicial statement regarding his acquisition of Jones’s van for impeachment purposes During defendant’s cross-examination, the prosecutor stated that he desired to question defendant about a statement he made at the hospital after invoking his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ]) while being questioned about Stopher’s killing.

2002Miranda/Harris: admission of defendant’s extrajudicial statement regarding his acquisition of Jones’s van for impeachment purposes During defendant’s cross-examination, the prosecutor stated that he desired to question defendant about a statement he made at the hospital after invoking his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [ 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 ]) while being questioned about Stopher’s killing.

2025(Bullock, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 990 .) Banks told the court during the hearing what was missing from the report: his completion of Criminal Gangs Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and Alcoholics Anonymous and participation in a group for getting his G.E.D.

2025(Harris, supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 498 ) Daugherty presented photographs, which are not in the record but were described in detail by Daugherty and the trial court during the hearing, which showed that Powell was standing in Daugherty’s driveway.

2024The disposition we shall adopt, however, works both ways: just as the People will have an opportunity to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior criminal conduct, defendant will have the opportunity to submit any mitigating evidence of the type mentioned by the trial court during the hearing from which this appeal is taken (e.g., his disciplinary history during the 30-plus years he has been in custody). 4 Though forfeiture principles do not foreclose defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for the trial court’s order (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596 ), we do be

2023In any event, Officer Guevara’s characterization of his justification for the detention is not dispositive; the validity of the officer’s actions under the Fourth Amendment “turns on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time” (Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 136 ), “not on the officer’s actual state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken” (Maryland v. Macon (1985) 472 U.S. 463 , 470–471).

2023However, the court made no mention of defendant’s four misdemeanor convictions. “[W]hen part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.’ ” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 , citing People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 .) “[T]he full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.” (People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415 , 424–425.) “[W]hen a case

2023However, the court made no mention of defendant’s four misdemeanor convictions. “[W]hen part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.’ ” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 , citing People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 .) “[T]he full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.” (People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415 , 424–425.) “[W]hen a case

2023In any event, Officer Guevara’s characterization of his justification for the detention is not dispositive; the validity of the officer’s actions under the Fourth Amendment “turns on an objective assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time” (Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 136 ), “not on the officer’s actual state of mind at the time the challenged action was taken” (Maryland v. Macon (1985) 472 U.S. 463 , 470–471).

2023However, the court made no mention of defendant’s four misdemeanor convictions. “[W]hen part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.’ ” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 , citing People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 .) “[T]he full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.” (People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415 , 424–425.) “[W]hen a case

2023However, the court made no mention of defendant’s four misdemeanor convictions. “[W]hen part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.’ ” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 , citing People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 .) “[T]he full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant.” (People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415 , 424–425.) “[W]hen a case

2023During defense counsel’s cross-examination of Officer Guevara during the special hearing, the following colloquy occurred: “[Counsel:] You actually didn’t see anywhere, where this person was coming from a vehicle, or you saw a general area he was coming from, right? “[Officer Guevara:] That’s correct. 5 Because we conclude that the detention, searches, and seizures of defendant and the evidence defendant sought to suppress were lawful, we do not address the attenuation doctrine, on which the trial court relied. 19 “[Counsel:] Nothing to link anything that the tagger did to what Mr. Barclay was

2022(People v. Roberts (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1106 , 1132–1133.) During defendant’s court trial on the serious felony enhancement, the trial court admitted the section 969b packet and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation conviction packet.

2022While an expert’s opinion is not required to find a defendant incompetent, we have noted that “to discard [expert] evidence” when it is available “for mere psychiatric speculation” is “clearly outside our province.” (People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 288 .) In the absence of evidence of incompetence that is substantial as a matter of law, we give great deference to the trial judge’s decision not to initiate formal competency proceedings.

2022As a general rule, “ ‘ “[a] defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashion, and on the same ground, the defendant objected to the action and also requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the perceived impropriety.” ’ ” (People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 674 .) During defendant’s cross-examination, counsel 1 The second paragraph of CALCRIM No. 521 instructs: “The length of time the person spends considering whether to kill does not alone determine whether the killing is deliberate and premeditated.

2021On this record, Perlman has not shown the admission of the 2004 incident “ ‘ “would have produced ‘a significantly different impression of [McVeigh’s] credibility.” ’ ’ ” (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 455 .) II.