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 2003–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wainwright v. Wittgreen2 sentences2014Dismissal of Three Prospective Jurors Based on Their Views Concerning the Death Penalty Defendants contend the trial court erroneously excused for cause three prospective jurors, violating their rights to an impartial jury, a fair sentencing hearing, and due process under the state and federal Constitutions.19 The claims are unpersuasive. ―Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court‘s determination that [a prospective juror‘s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as 2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bramitgreen2 sentences2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h 2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lancastergreen2 sentences2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h 2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2014Dismissal of Three Prospective Jurors Based on Their Views Concerning the Death Penalty Defendants contend the trial court erroneously excused for cause three prospective jurors, violating their rights to an impartial jury, a fair sentencing hearing, and due process under the state and federal Constitutions.19 The claims are unpersuasive. ―Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court‘s determination that [a prospective juror‘s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as 2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2006"A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewable for abuse of discretion." ( People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 292 , 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 106 P.3d 990 .) "[A] defendant's due process rights are violated when hearsay testimony at the penalty phase of a capital trial is excluded, if both of the following conditions are present: (1) the excluded testimony is `highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial,' and (2) there are substantial reasons to assume the reliability of the evidence." ( People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 704 , 276 Cal. 2006"A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewable for abuse of discretion." ( People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 292 , 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 106 P.3d 990 .) "[A] defendant's due process rights are violated when hearsay testimony at the penalty phase of a capital trial is excluded, if both of the following conditions are present: (1) the excluded testimony is `highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial,' and (2) there are substantial reasons to assume the reliability of the evidence." ( People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 704 , 276 Cal. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vieiragreen2 sentences2006"A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewable for abuse of discretion." ( People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 292 , 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 106 P.3d 990 .) "[A] defendant's due process rights are violated when hearsay testimony at the penalty phase of a capital trial is excluded, if both of the following conditions are present: (1) the excluded testimony is `highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial,' and (2) there are substantial reasons to assume the reliability of the evidence." ( People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 704 , 276 Cal. 2006"A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewable for abuse of discretion." ( People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 292 , 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 106 P.3d 990 .) "[A] defendant's due process rights are violated when hearsay testimony at the penalty phase of a capital trial is excluded, if both of the following conditions are present: (1) the excluded testimony is `highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial,' and (2) there are substantial reasons to assume the reliability of the evidence." ( People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 704 , 276 Cal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peracchi v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2024While there was evidence that Emanuel began to walk away and told Whitley “ ‘let’s go’ ” when Cody refused to give up the marijuana, the sentencing court may very 15 well have rejected Santos’s testimony on that subject.14 “The trial court is considered to be in the best position to conduct the resentencing hearing.” (Peracchi v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1245, 1254 .) “[A] defendant’s interest in a full and fair sentencing hearing usually is best served when the hearing is presided over by the same judge who heard the evidence at trial. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1261.) In this case, the 2020Our partial reversal requires that the case be reopened, with an actual trial if necessary; furthermore, our partial reversal reflected our view that the trial judge erred in a crucial decision of law.” (Id. at p. 766.) As discussed, resolution 13 We also find instructive the Peracchi court’s consideration of the fact “a defendant’s interest in a full and fair sentencing hearing usually is best served when the hearing is presided over by the same judge who heard the evidence at trial.” (Peracchi, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1261 .) The same policy consideration weighs in favor of having Judge Mohr | 4 | 2014–2024 |
People v. Strunk
green
2 sentences2014In Strunk, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 265 , the trial judge did not sentence the defendant. 2014In Strunk, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 265 , the trial judge did not sentence the defendant. | 2 | 2003–2014 |
People v. Downer
green
1 sentence2014The California Supreme Court has stated: “It is settled that it is not error for a judge other than the one who tried a criminal case to pronounce judgment and sentence. [Citations.]” (People v. Downer (1962) 57 Cal.2d 800, 816 .) “Unlike a defendant who enters into a plea bargain with an implied term that the same judge who accepts the plea will impose the sentence [citation], a defendant who has been convicted after trial has no such right. [Citation.]” (Jacobs, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 733 .) Yet, it is also established that “a defendant’s interest in a full and fair sentencing hearing | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences2014The California Supreme Court has stated: “It is settled that it is not error for a judge other than the one who tried a criminal case to pronounce judgment and sentence. [Citations.]” (People v. Downer (1962) 57 Cal.2d 800, 816 .) “Unlike a defendant who enters into a plea bargain with an implied term that the same judge who accepts the plea will impose the sentence [citation], a defendant who has been convicted after trial has no such right. [Citation.]” (Jacobs, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 733 .) Yet, it is also established that “a defendant’s interest in a full and fair sentencing hearing 2014The California Supreme Court has stated: “It is settled that it is not error for a judge other than the one who tried a criminal case to pronounce judgment and sentence. [Citations.]” (People v. Downer (1962) 57 Cal.2d 800, 816 .) “Unlike a defendant who enters into a plea bargain with an implied term that the same judge who accepts the plea will impose the sentence [citation], a defendant who has been convicted after trial has no such right. [Citation.]” (Jacobs, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 733 .) Yet, it is also established that “a defendant’s interest in a full and fair sentencing hearing | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Gray v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h 2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Adams v. Texas
green
2 sentences2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h 2014“Under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 841 , 105 S.Ct. 844 ] (Witt), we consider whether the record fairly supports the trial court’s determination that [a prospective juror’s] views on the death penalty would have prevented or substantially impaired her performance as a juror.” (People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 357 [ 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 , 256 P.3d 603 ].) “ ‘Generally, a trial court’s rulings on motions to exclude for cause are afforded deference on appeal, for “appellate courts recognize that a trial judge who observes and speaks with a prospective juror and h | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Kaurish
green
2 sentences2006"A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewable for abuse of discretion." ( People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 292 , 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 106 P.3d 990 .) "[A] defendant's due process rights are violated when hearsay testimony at the penalty phase of a capital trial is excluded, if both of the following conditions are present: (1) the excluded testimony is `highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial,' and (2) there are substantial reasons to assume the reliability of the evidence." ( People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 704 , 276 Cal. 2006"A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewable for abuse of discretion." ( People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 292 , 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 , 106 P.3d 990 .) "[A] defendant's due process rights are violated when hearsay testimony at the penalty phase of a capital trial is excluded, if both of the following conditions are present: (1) the excluded testimony is `highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial,' and (2) there are substantial reasons to assume the reliability of the evidence." ( People v. Kaurish, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 704 , 276 Cal. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Gulbrandsen
green
1 sentence2003(See People v. Strunk, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 275 ; People v. Gulbrandsen, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 1562 .) A conclusion contrary to the one we reach today actually could harm defendants, should the prosecution be permitted to challenge a judge it regards as too lenient. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.