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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sharp v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2026This means the prosecution has no means to independently investigate the 3 The California Supreme Court also held: “[A]ny rule that existed before 1990 suggesting or holding a criminal defendant who places his or her mental state in issue may thereby be required to grant the prosecution access for purposes of a mental examination by a prosecution expert was superseded by the enactment of the criminal discovery statutes in 1990.” (Verdin, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1109 .) 5. appropriateness of the mental defense. [¶] It is imperative when defendants claim a mental defense that they are subject to | 1 | 1 |
People v. Beelergreen2 sentences2014Second, the Beeler court noted, there was no adequate showing that the evidence, even if material, could be obtained within a reasonable time. ( Beeler, supra, 9 Cal.4th 953 at pp. 1003-1004, 1007 .) In People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195 (Pride), the defense sought a continuance of the penalty phase of the trial to determine whether it could present a psychiatric defense. 2014Second, the Beeler court noted, there was no adequate showing that the evidence, even if material, could be obtained within a reasonable time. ( Beeler, supra, 9 Cal.4th 953 at pp. 1003-1004, 1007 .) In People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195 (Pride), the defense sought a continuance of the penalty phase of the trial to determine whether it could present a psychiatric defense. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1999(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1019 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ]; People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 728-731; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 698-700 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 69 , 755 P.2d 253 ] [claim of prosecutorial misconduct arising from reliance upon Dr. Coleman’s testimony]; see also People v. Prince (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 848, 856-859 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 154 ] [cited with approval in Danielson].) Although a defendant has the right to present a psychiatric defense through experts, and, as we have observed, the courtroom is not the proper forum to challenge the prop 1999(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1019 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ]; People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 728-731; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 698-700 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 69 , 755 P.2d 253 ] [claim of prosecutorial misconduct arising from reliance upon Dr. Coleman’s testimony]; see also People v. Prince (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 848, 856-859 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 154 ] [cited with approval in Danielson].) Although a defendant has the right to present a psychiatric defense through experts, and, as we have observed, the courtroom is not the proper forum to challenge the prop | 1 | 1 |
People v. Princegreen2 sentences1999(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1019 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ]; People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 728-731; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 698-700 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 69 , 755 P.2d 253 ] [claim of prosecutorial misconduct arising from reliance upon Dr. Coleman’s testimony]; see also People v. Prince (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 848, 856-859 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 154 ] [cited with approval in Danielson].) Although a defendant has the right to present a psychiatric defense through experts, and, as we have observed, the courtroom is not the proper forum to challenge the prop 1999(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1019 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ]; People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 728-731; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 698-700 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 69 , 755 P.2d 253 ] [claim of prosecutorial misconduct arising from reliance upon Dr. Coleman’s testimony]; see also People v. Prince (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 848, 856-859 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 154 ] [cited with approval in Danielson].) Although a defendant has the right to present a psychiatric defense through experts, and, as we have observed, the courtroom is not the proper forum to challenge the prop | 1 | 1 |
People v. Babbittgreen2 sentences1999(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1019 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ]; People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 728-731; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 698-700 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 69 , 755 P.2d 253 ] [claim of prosecutorial misconduct arising from reliance upon Dr. Coleman’s testimony]; see also People v. Prince (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 848, 856-859 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 154 ] [cited with approval in Danielson].) Although a defendant has the right to present a psychiatric defense through experts, and, as we have observed, the courtroom is not the proper forum to challenge the prop 1999(People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1019 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 689 , 857 P.2d 1099 ]; People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 728-731; People v. Babbitt (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 698-700 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 69 , 755 P.2d 253 ] [claim of prosecutorial misconduct arising from reliance upon Dr. Coleman’s testimony]; see also People v. Prince (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 848, 856-859 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 154 ] [cited with approval in Danielson].) Although a defendant has the right to present a psychiatric defense through experts, and, as we have observed, the courtroom is not the proper forum to challenge the prop | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gaygreen2 sentences1995It could reasonably conclude that evidence of the killing of Chavez, who the prosecution believed was murdered because he was a witness, would be introduced to challenge an available psychiatric defense ( People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 639, fn. 1 ) that defendant lacked the mental capacity to premeditate, deliberate, or conform his behavior to the law's requirements because a personality disorder existing since childhood caused him to fly into rages in certain sexual *851 situations. ( People v. Gay (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 661, 667-668, 670 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 812 ].) That was the defense 1995It could reasonably conclude that evidence of the killing of Chavez, who the prosecution believed was murdered because he was a witness, would be introduced to challenge an available psychiatric defense ( People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 639, fn. 1 ) that defendant lacked the mental capacity to premeditate, deliberate, or conform his behavior to the law's requirements because a personality disorder existing since childhood caused him to fly into rages in certain sexual *851 situations. ( People v. Gay (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 661, 667-668, 670 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 812 ].) That was the defense | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mickeygreen2 sentences1995It could reasonably conclude that evidence of the killing of Chavez, who the prosecution believed was murdered because he was a witness, would be introduced to challenge an available psychiatric defense (People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 639, fn. 1 ) that defendant lacked the mental capacity to premeditate, deliberate, or conform his behavior to the law’s requirements because a personality disorder existing since childhood caused him to fly into rages in certain sexual situations. 1995It could reasonably conclude that evidence of the killing of Chavez, who the prosecution believed was murdered because he was a witness, would be introduced to challenge an available psychiatric defense ( People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 639, fn. 1 ) that defendant lacked the mental capacity to premeditate, deliberate, or conform his behavior to the law's requirements because a personality disorder existing since childhood caused him to fly into rages in certain sexual *851 situations. ( People v. Gay (1972) 28 Cal. App.3d 661, 667-668, 670 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 812 ].) That was the defense | 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. Marsden
green
2 sentences2022Near the beginning of the retrial, in January 1999, Judge Hoff — to whom the case was initially assigned for retrial — 6 We need not address Bloom’s competence during the penalty phase because, as discussed post at page 45, the penalty verdict must be reversed for other reasons. 7 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). 26 PEOPLE v. BLOOM Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. ordered an evaluation of Bloom’s competence in connection with his motion for self-representation, but Bloom withdrew his motion and no evaluation took place. 2022Near the beginning of the retrial, in January 1999, Judge Hoff — to whom the case was initially assigned for retrial — 6 We need not address Bloom’s competence during the penalty phase because, as discussed post at page 45, the penalty verdict must be reversed for other reasons. 7 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). 26 PEOPLE v. BLOOM Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. ordered an evaluation of Bloom’s competence in connection with his motion for self-representation, but Bloom withdrew his motion and no evaluation took place. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
DE JESUS VERDIN v. Superior Court of Riverside County
green
1 sentence2026This means the prosecution has no means to independently investigate the 3 The California Supreme Court also held: “[A]ny rule that existed before 1990 suggesting or holding a criminal defendant who places his or her mental state in issue may thereby be required to grant the prosecution access for purposes of a mental examination by a prosecution expert was superseded by the enactment of the criminal discovery statutes in 1990.” (Verdin, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1109 .) 5. appropriateness of the mental defense. [¶] It is imperative when defendants claim a mental defense that they are subject to | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Payton (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1078 ; In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1074 ; People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 945 ; People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 613 , overruled on another ground by People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237 .) These decisions have no application here, where the issue is investigation into the need for forensic testing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Stanworth
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Payton (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1078 ; In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1074 ; People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 945 ; People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 613 , overruled on another ground by People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237 .) These decisions have no application here, where the issue is investigation into the need for forensic testing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Fields
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Payton (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1078 ; In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1074 ; People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 945 ; People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 613 , overruled on another ground by People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237 .) These decisions have no application here, where the issue is investigation into the need for forensic testing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Payton (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1078 ; In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1074 ; People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 945 ; People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 613 , overruled on another ground by People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237 .) These decisions have no application here, where the issue is investigation into the need for forensic testing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Payton
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Payton (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1078 ; In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1074 ; People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 945 ; People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 613 , overruled on another ground by People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225, 237 .) These decisions have no application here, where the issue is investigation into the need for forensic testing. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Pride
green
1 sentence2014Second, the Beeler court noted, there was no adequate showing that the evidence, even if material, could be obtained within a reasonable time. ( Beeler, supra, 9 Cal.4th 953 at pp. 1003-1004, 1007 .) In People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195 (Pride), the defense sought a continuance of the penalty phase of the trial to determine whether it could present a psychiatric defense. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Danielson
green
1 sentence1999As we determined in People v. Danielson, supra, 3 Cal.4th 691 , Dr. Coleman’s testimony regarding the unreliability of psychiatric testimony was neither improper nor prejudicial, because he did not suggest that courts should bar psychiatrists from the courtroom. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Mozingo
green
2 sentences1985Defendant relies upon People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ], In Mozingo the California Supreme Court found the defendant’s trial counsel incompetently failed to investigate the possibility of a mental defense. 1985Defendant relies upon People v. Mozingo (1983) 34 Cal.3d 926 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 212 , 671 P.2d 363 ], In Mozingo the California Supreme Court found the defendant’s trial counsel incompetently failed to investigate the possibility of a mental defense. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.