7 California opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2025 1 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. Cookgreen2 sentences2015(See, e.g., People v. Cook (2006) 39 Cal.4th 566, 609 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 22 , 139 P.3d 492 ].) With respect to the remaining two photographs and the 30-second portion of the crime scene videotape depicting the victims in the bathroom, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. “ ‘A trial court’s decision to admit photographs under Evidence Code section 352 will be upheld on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of such photographs clearly outweighs their probative value.’ [Citations.] Notably, however, the discretion to exclude photographs under Evidence Code section 2015(See, e.g., People v. Cook (2006) 39 Cal.4th 566, 609 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 22 , 139 P.3d 492 ].) With respect to the remaining two photographs and the 30-second portion of the crime scene videotape depicting the victims in the bathroom, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. “ ‘A trial court’s decision to admit photographs under Evidence Code section 352 will be upheld on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of such photographs clearly outweighs their probative value.’ [Citations.] Notably, however, the discretion to exclude photographs under Evidence Code section | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2009(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ]; Johnson, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1480 .) Defendant killed Cortez—he admitted as much. 2009(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ]; Johnson, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1480 .) Defendant killed Cortez—he admitted as much. | 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. Lewis
green
2 sentences2018(See, e.g., People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1038 .) However, they do argue that the prejudicial effect of the evidence that Iniguez had been assaulted was compounded by the trial court’s admonition, because it “had the unfortunate effect of vouching for [Iniguez]’s credibility.” (Fn. omitted.) Because we hold that the admission of the challenged evidence was not error and, if error, was forfeited, we have no occasion to consider whether it was prejudicial. 2018(See, e.g., People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1038 .) However, they do argue that the prejudicial effect of the evidence that Iniguez had been assaulted was compounded by the trial court’s admonition, because it “had the unfortunate effect of vouching for [Iniguez]’s credibility.” (Fn. omitted.) Because we hold that the admission of the challenged evidence was not error and, if error, was forfeited, we have no occasion to consider whether it was prejudicial. | 4 | 2017–2018 |
People v. Jennings
green
1 sentence2025On this record, trial court reasonably could find that Hurtado sent the accusatory text messages “ ‘ “under circumstances that would normally call for a response if the statement were untrue” ’ ” and that Carrera responded with “ ‘ “silence, evasion, or equivocation.” ’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 661 .) Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the challenged evidence under the exception for adoptive admissions. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2009(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ]; Johnson, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 1480 .) Defendant killed Cortez—he admitted as much. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.