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 1985–2025 2 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. Haynesgreen2 sentences1985And in People v. Haynes (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 1117, 1120-1122 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 450 ], the court discussed the difficulties of defining terms which can arise in assessing a claim of error concerning the instruction, holding in that case that a defendant's "bizarre" explanation of events which led to a rape charge did not preclude giving the instruction. 1985And in People v. Haynes (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 1117, 1120-1122 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 450 ], the court discussed the difficulties of defining terms which can arise in assessing a claim of error concerning the instruction, holding in that case that a defendant's "bizarre" explanation of events which led to a rape charge did not preclude giving the instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Petersgreen2 sentences1985The trial judge makes a preliminary determination as a matter of law concerning the general applicability of the instruction, mindful of the state of the record; it is then within the province of the jury to utilize the instruction if they so choose. ( Id., at p. 682, fn. 8; CALJIC No. 17.31.) If a defendant has not been asked an appropriate question calling for either an explanation or denial, the instruction cannot be given, as a matter of law. *393 If a defendant does not answer the question put to him because of some circumstance precluding his knowledge, such as an alibi placing him elsew 1985The trial judge makes a preliminary determination as a matter of law concerning the general applicability of the instruction, mindful of the state of the record; it is then within the province of the jury to utilize the instruction if they so choose. ( Id., at p. 682, fn. 8; CALJIC No. 17.31.) If a defendant has not been asked an appropriate question calling for either an explanation or denial, the instruction cannot be given, as a matter of law. *393 If a defendant does not answer the question put to him because of some circumstance precluding his knowledge, such as an alibi placing him elsew | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rachel Spivack v. City of Philadelphia
green
2 sentences2025In relevant part, Code of Civil Procedure section 906 provides as follows: “The respondent, or party in whose favor the judgment was given, may, without appealing from such judgment, request the reviewing court to and it may review … matters for the purpose of determining whether or not the appellant was prejudiced by the error or errors upon which he relies for reversal or modification of the judgment from which appeal is taken.” 61. of policymakers’ subjective intent; the general-applicability inquiry, on the other hand, “focuses on the objective sweep of a policy: whom it covers, whom it ex 2025In relevant part, Code of Civil Procedure section 906 provides as follows: “The respondent, or party in whose favor the judgment was given, may, without appealing from such judgment, request the reviewing court to and it may review … matters for the purpose of determining whether or not the appellant was prejudiced by the error or errors upon which he relies for reversal or modification of the judgment from which appeal is taken.” 61. of policymakers’ subjective intent; the general-applicability inquiry, on the other hand, “focuses on the objective sweep of a policy: whom it covers, whom it ex | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Carter v. State
green
2 sentences2002(Carter v. State (Ind. 1999) 706 N.E.2d 552, 553-554 ].) But we need not decide the general applicability of this doctrine to probation revocation hearings because this case does not involve a new scientific technique. 2002Such factors, however, do not necessarily preclude the application of the Kelly/Frye rule. ( Seering v. Dept. of Social Services (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 298, 313 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 422 [doctrine was applicable in a state administrative hearing to revoke a day care operator's license.].) Yet, at least one court has adopted the Attorney General's position. ( Carter v. State (Ind.1999) 706 N.E.2d 552, 553-554 .) But we need not decide the general applicability of this doctrine to probation revocation hearings because this case does not involve a new scientific technique. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Cudjo
green
1 sentence2008(People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 461-462; People v. Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 619 .) Furthermore, even assuming the general applicability of the doctrine cited by defendant, the predicate for his claim is absent. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Seering v. DEPTARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
green
2 sentences2002Such factors, however, do not necessarily preclude the application of the Kelly/Frye rule. ( Seering v. Dept. of Social Services (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 298, 313 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 422 [doctrine was applicable in a state administrative hearing to revoke a day care operator's license.].) Yet, at least one court has adopted the Attorney General's position. ( Carter v. State (Ind.1999) 706 N.E.2d 552, 553-554 .) But we need not decide the general applicability of this doctrine to probation revocation hearings because this case does not involve a new scientific technique. 2002Such factors, however, do not necessarily preclude the application of the Kelly/Frye rule. ( Seering v. Dept. of Social Services (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 298, 313 , 239 Cal.Rptr. 422 [doctrine was applicable in a state administrative hearing to revoke a day care operator's license.].) Yet, at least one court has adopted the Attorney General's position. ( Carter v. State (Ind.1999) 706 N.E.2d 552, 553-554 .) But we need not decide the general applicability of this doctrine to probation revocation hearings because this case does not involve a new scientific technique. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Rojes v. Riverside General Hospital
green
1 sentence1989It is noteworthy that when the recent case, Rojes , quoted the language employed in Blue Mountain, the body of its quotation includes, in brackets, “if the original ruling is an appealable order.” (Italics added.) (Rojes v. Riverside General Hospital, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1159 .) This language was not included in the Blue Mountain opinion, but serves to clarify the original holding. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. De Larco
green
2 sentences1985The trial judge makes a preliminary determination as a matter of law concerning the general applicability of the instruction, mindful of the state of the record; it is then within the province of the jury to utilize the instruction if they so choose. ( Id., at p. 682, fn. 8; CALJIC No. 17.31.) If a defendant has not been asked an appropriate question calling for either an explanation or denial, the instruction cannot be given, as a matter of law. *393 If a defendant does not answer the question put to him because of some circumstance precluding his knowledge, such as an alibi placing him elsew 1985The trial judge makes a preliminary determination as a matter of law concerning the general applicability of the instruction, mindful of the state of the record; it is then within the province of the jury to utilize the instruction if they so choose. ( Id., at p. 682, fn. 8; CALJIC No. 17.31.) If a defendant has not been asked an appropriate question calling for either an explanation or denial, the instruction cannot be given, as a matter of law. *393 If a defendant does not answer the question put to him because of some circumstance precluding his knowledge, such as an alibi placing him elsew | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.