Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2021 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. Elliottgreen1 sentence2021However, “[e]vidence of a third party’s prior crimes is inadmissible to establish the third party’s criminal propensity.” (People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 580 (Elliott).) No admissible evidence actually linking Michael to the homicide was identified.16 The court disagreed with the position that Michael was physically similar to the suspect, a conclusion Jackson did not specifically dispute in the trial court and has not disputed on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bookergreen1 sentence2013(People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal.4th 987, 996-997 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1201 .) ―[O]ne who kills in imperfect defense of others – in the actual but unreasonable belief he must defend another from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury – is guilty only of manslaughter.‖ (Id. at p. 993.) Here, however, the evidence proffered by the defense ―simply was not substantial enough to merit the requested jury instruction.‖ (People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 183 [defense request for imperfect self-defense instruction properly refused because | 1 | 1 |
People v. Giminezgreen2 sentences2004(People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ].) “[judicial discretion is ... . ‘the sound judgment of the court, to be exercised according to the rules of law.’ [Citation.] . . . [T]he term judicial discretion ‘implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking.’ [Citation.] Moreover, discretion is abused whenever the court *253 exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. [Citations.]” (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 534 P.2d 65 ].) In the instant case, the tri 2004(People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ].) “[judicial discretion is ... . ‘the sound judgment of the court, to be exercised according to the rules of law.’ [Citation.] . . . [T]he term judicial discretion ‘implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking.’ [Citation.] Moreover, discretion is abused whenever the court *253 exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. [Citations.]” (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 534 P.2d 65 ].) In the instant case, the tri | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2004(People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ].) “[judicial discretion is ... . ‘the sound judgment of the court, to be exercised according to the rules of law.’ [Citation.] . . . [T]he term judicial discretion ‘implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking.’ [Citation.] Moreover, discretion is abused whenever the court *253 exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. [Citations.]” (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 534 P.2d 65 ].) In the instant case, the tri 2004(People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ].) “[judicial discretion is ... . ‘the sound judgment of the court, to be exercised according to the rules of law.’ [Citation.] . . . [T]he term judicial discretion ‘implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking.’ [Citation.] Moreover, discretion is abused whenever the court *253 exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. [Citations.]” (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 534 P.2d 65 ].) In the instant case, the tri | 1 | 1 |
Witt v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1992(Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 67 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ]; Berg v. Sonen (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 434, 440-441 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) In People v. Webb (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 402, 418 [ 300 P.2d 130 ], the court held that the defense was not allowed to submit the entire transcript of a taped conversation into evidence after a portion of the tape had been admitted into evidence on motion of the prosecution, unless it could be shown that the evidence proffered by the defense was relevant. 1992(Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 67 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ]; Berg v. Sonen (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 434, 440-441 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) In People v. Webb (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 402, 418 [ 300 P.2d 130 ], the court held that the defense was not allowed to submit the entire transcript of a taped conversation into evidence after a portion of the tape had been admitted into evidence on motion of the prosecution, unless it could be shown that the evidence proffered by the defense was relevant. | 1 | 1 |
Berg v. Sonengreen2 sentences1992(Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 67 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ]; Berg v. Sonen (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 434, 440-441 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) In People v. Webb (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 402, 418 [ 300 P.2d 130 ], the court held that the defense was not allowed to submit the entire transcript of a taped conversation into evidence after a portion of the tape had been admitted into evidence on motion of the prosecution, unless it could be shown that the evidence proffered by the defense was relevant. 1992(Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 67 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ]; Berg v. Sonen (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 434, 440-441 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) In People v. Webb (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 402, 418 [ 300 P.2d 130 ], the court held that the defense was not allowed to submit the entire transcript of a taped conversation into evidence after a portion of the tape had been admitted into evidence on motion of the prosecution, unless it could be shown that the evidence proffered by the defense was relevant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Webbgreen2 sentences1992(Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 67 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ]; Berg v. Sonen (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 434, 440-441 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) In People v. Webb (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 402, 418 [ 300 P.2d 130 ], the court held that the defense was not allowed to submit the entire transcript of a taped conversation into evidence after a portion of the tape had been admitted into evidence on motion of the prosecution, unless it could be shown that the evidence proffered by the defense was relevant. 1992(Witt v. Jackson (1961) 57 Cal.2d 57, 67 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 369 , 366 P.2d 641 ]; Berg v. Sonen (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 434, 440-441 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 37 ].) In People v. Webb (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 402, 418 [ 300 P.2d 130 ], the court held that the defense was not allowed to submit the entire transcript of a taped conversation into evidence after a portion of the tape had been admitted into evidence on motion of the prosecution, unless it could be shown that the evidence proffered by the defense was relevant. | 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. Hall
green
1 sentence2021The evidence proffered by the defense did not link Michael or Nathan “to the actual perpetration of the crime.” (Hall, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 833 .) Michael reportedly resided in Ocean Beach, was similar in appearance to the suspect, and had a criminal record that included assault with a deadly weapon. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Green v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2019As such, we did not deem our request to violate Green v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 126 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Place
green
1 sentence2019Therefore, we requested the parties submit letter briefs addressing the following issue: "[W]hether exigent circumstances allowed for the warrantless seizure of [Tran's] dashboard camera under United States v. Place (1983) 462 U.S. 696 [(Place)]." We requested such supplemental briefing because we were satisfied that the evidence proffered at the hearing on Tran's motion to suppress was fully developed to analyze the constitutionality of the seizure of the dashboard camera and no additional evidence was needed. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Chun
red
1 sentence2013(People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal.4th 987, 996-997 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1201 .) ―[O]ne who kills in imperfect defense of others – in the actual but unreasonable belief he must defend another from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury – is guilty only of manslaughter.‖ (Id. at p. 993.) Here, however, the evidence proffered by the defense ―simply was not substantial enough to merit the requested jury instruction.‖ (People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 183 [defense request for imperfect self-defense instruction properly refused because | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Randle
red
1 sentence2013(People v. Randle (2005) 35 Cal.4th 987, 996-997 , overruled on other grounds in People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1201 .) ―[O]ne who kills in imperfect defense of others – in the actual but unreasonable belief he must defend another from imminent danger of death or great bodily injury – is guilty only of manslaughter.‖ (Id. at p. 993.) Here, however, the evidence proffered by the defense ―simply was not substantial enough to merit the requested jury instruction.‖ (People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 183 [defense request for imperfect self-defense instruction properly refused because | 1 | 2013–2013 |
United States v. Lloyd Ray Bradshaw
green
1 sentence2009(U.S. v. Bradshaw (10th Cir. 1986) 787 F.2d 1385, 1390 .) The evidence proffered by the defense in the present case was not such that the court’s failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing constituted error under either the state or federal standards. 24 As explained ante, we decline to consider the unsworn juror affidavits claimed by defendant to suggest jurors believed that capital-offense defendants serving life terms without possibility of parole actually may be released. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2004(People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 372 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 272 , 28 P.3d 34 ].) “[judicial discretion is ... . ‘the sound judgment of the court, to be exercised according to the rules of law.’ [Citation.] . . . [T]he term judicial discretion ‘implies absence of arbitrary determination, capricious disposition or whimsical thinking.’ [Citation.] Moreover, discretion is abused whenever the court *253 exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered. [Citations.]” (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 534 P.2d 65 ].) In the instant case, the tri | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Alcala
green
1 sentence1993Ultimately, the trial court excluded London’s testimony pursuant to Evidence Code sections 352 and 402, ruling in part that the testimony ‘would confound, screw up, do nothing for this case as far as either side getting a fair trial.’ ” (People v. Alcala, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 788 .) The high court concluded the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in excluding this testimony. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.