7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2022 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. Griffingreen1 sentence2008(People v. Griffin, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1031 [in the absence of evidence to the contrary, “the fact that the 1978 initiative deleted the premeditation requirement of the 1977 death penalty law provides an overwhelming inference that the voters intended to eliminate the premeditation requirement”]; McGuire v. Wentworth (1932) 120 Cal.App. 340, 344 [ 7 P.2d 729 ] [silence in arguments to voters regarding provision of initiative that operated to limit charter cities’ authority over public funds does not support inference voters intended to preserve broad authority accorded under preinitiative | 1 | 1 |
McGuire v. Wentworthgreen2 sentences2008(People v. Griffin, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1031 [in the absence of evidence to the contrary, “the fact that the 1978 initiative deleted the premeditation requirement of the 1977 death penalty law provides an overwhelming inference that the voters intended to eliminate the premeditation requirement”]; McGuire v. Wentworth (1932) 120 Cal.App. 340, 344 [ 7 P.2d 729 ] [silence in arguments to voters regarding provision of initiative that operated to limit charter cities’ authority over public funds does not support inference voters intended to preserve broad authority accorded under preinitiative 2008(People v. Griffin, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 1031 [in the absence of evidence to the contrary, “the fact that the 1978 initiative deleted the premeditation requirement of the 1977 death penalty law provides an overwhelming inference that the voters intended to eliminate the premeditation requirement”]; McGuire v. Wentworth (1932) 120 Cal.App. 340, 344 [ 7 P.2d 729 ] [silence in arguments to voters regarding provision of initiative that operated to limit charter cities’ authority over public funds does not support inference voters intended to preserve broad authority accorded under preinitiative | 1 | 1 |
People v. Swaingreen2 sentences2001As noted, "proof of unlawful `intent to kill' is the functional equivalent of express malice" ( People v. Swain, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 601, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 390 , 909 P.2d 994 ), and the premeditation instruction included a requirement that the jury find a "killing ... preceded and accompanied by a clear, deliberate intent on the part of the defendant to kill." (CALJIC No. 8.20.) The jury would understand the requirements of express malice under the instructions as a whole. 2001As noted, "proof of unlawful `intent to kill' is the functional equivalent of express malice" ( People v. Swain, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 601, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 390 , 909 P.2d 994 ), and the premeditation instruction included a requirement that the jury find a "killing ... preceded and accompanied by a clear, deliberate intent on the part of the defendant to kill." (CALJIC No. 8.20.) The jury would understand the requirements of express malice under the instructions as a whole. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Weidertgreen2 sentences1988(Cf. People v. Weidert (1985) 39 Cal.3d 836, 844 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 57 , 705 P.2d 380 ].) Accordingly we decline to interpret paragraph 17 of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a) as requiring proof of premeditation or deliberation. 1988(Cf. People v. Weidert (1985) 39 Cal.3d 836, 844 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 57 , 705 P.2d 380 ].) Accordingly we decline to interpret paragraph 17 of Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a) as requiring proof of premeditation or deliberation. | 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. Wilson
green
1 sentence2022“When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 .) “The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) The Attorney General argues that the inclusion of these tw | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Young
green
1 sentence2022“When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 .) “The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) The Attorney General argues that the inclusion of these tw | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Loza
green
1 sentence2022In his initial summation, however, the 9 We reject the Attorney General’s attempt to distinguish Loza on the ground that there, certain language in the premeditation instruction directed the jury to determine the mental state of “the slayer.” (Loza, supra, 27 Cal.App.5th at 804 , italics omitted.) We discern no meaningful distinction between “the slayer” and “[t]he defendant . . . [who] committ[ed] the act that caused death.” Further, we are unpersuaded by the Attorney General’s observation that here, unlike in Loza, the jury was instructed that all instructions applied to each defendant unles | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Curry
green
2 sentences2020These findings demonstrate that the jury (1) rejected defendants’ voluntary intoxication claims and (2) found Curry and [defendant] guilty as perpetrators.” (Curry, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 789 .) Defendant also challenged the premeditation instruction for attempted premeditated murder on the basis that “these instructions improperly ‘allowed [the] jurors to attach a premeditation finding to [her] attempted murder charge, even if they explicitly found she did not personally premeditate, exposing her to a sentence of life without parole . . . .’ ” (Curry, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 791 .) 2020These findings demonstrate that the jury (1) rejected defendants’ voluntary intoxication claims and (2) found Curry and [defendant] guilty as perpetrators.” (Curry, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 789 .) Defendant also challenged the premeditation instruction for attempted premeditated murder on the basis that “these instructions improperly ‘allowed [the] jurors to attach a premeditation finding to [her] attempted murder charge, even if they explicitly found she did not personally premeditate, exposing her to a sentence of life without parole . . . .’ ” (Curry, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 791 .) | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Cole
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1217-1218 .) The evidence did not support a heat of passion theory. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.