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 1982–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burks v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016They rely on cases holding that “the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law.” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 558, fn. 13 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; see also Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 8-9 [ 57 L.Ed.2d 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ].) Here, however, the reversal was not based on an error of law. 2 Rather, the jury’s failure to return a verdict on the lesser related offense was due to an error of law. 2016They rely on cases holding that “the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law.” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 558, fn. 13 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; see also Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 8-9 [ 57 L.Ed.2d 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ].) Here, however, the reversal was not based on an error of law. 2 Rather, the jury’s failure to return a verdict on the lesser related offense was due to an error of law. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Shirleyred2 sentences2022The court should of course consider the requirements of section 3051 and Franklin on remand. 109 implicated].)” (In re D.N. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 898, 902-903 .) There is a “settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law.” (Shirley, 31 Cal.3d at p. 71 ; accord, People v. Otto (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1088, 1116 .) In Mil, after concluding that omission of the reckless disregard element from the trial court’s jury instruction was prejudicial under Chapman, our Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal “with directions to rem 2018Double Jeopardy Principles “In proceedings before the juvenile court juveniles are entitled to constitutional protections against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense.” (Richard M. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d. 370, 375.) The constitutional protection against double jeopardy generally prohibits retrial for the same offense when a conviction is reversed because of insufficient evidence (People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225 ) but not “after a reversal premised on error of law.” (People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 , superseded by statute on other grounds. | 2 | 5 |
People v. Ottogreen1 sentence2022The court should of course consider the requirements of section 3051 and Franklin on remand. 109 implicated].)” (In re D.N. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 898, 902-903 .) There is a “settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law.” (Shirley, 31 Cal.3d at p. 71 ; accord, People v. Otto (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1088, 1116 .) In Mil, after concluding that omission of the reckless disregard element from the trial court’s jury instruction was prejudicial under Chapman, our Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal “with directions to rem | 1 | 1 |
Richard M. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2018Double Jeopardy Principles “In proceedings before the juvenile court juveniles are entitled to constitutional protections against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense.” (Richard M. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d. 370, 375.) The constitutional protection against double jeopardy generally prohibits retrial for the same offense when a conviction is reversed because of insufficient evidence (People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225 ) but not “after a reversal premised on error of law.” (People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 , superseded by statute on other grounds. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wackergreen1 sentence2018(People v. Eagle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 275, 280 .) However, federal courts have held that double jeopardy protections do not bar retrial where an intervening judicial decision clarifies that the law requires “ ‘evidence that was not theretofore generally understood to be essential to prove the crime . . . .’ ” (United States v. Wacker (10th Cir. 1995) 72 F.3d 1453, 1465 [double jeopardy did not bar retrial where the government presented its proof based on the then- governing rule in the Circuit and, while the case was on appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that additional evidence was necessa | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Clarke Dexter Weemsgreen1 sentence2018(People v. Eagle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 275, 280 .) However, federal courts have held that double jeopardy protections do not bar retrial where an intervening judicial decision clarifies that the law requires “ ‘evidence that was not theretofore generally understood to be essential to prove the crime . . . .’ ” (United States v. Wacker (10th Cir. 1995) 72 F.3d 1453, 1465 [double jeopardy did not bar retrial where the government presented its proof based on the then- governing rule in the Circuit and, while the case was on appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that additional evidence was necessa | 1 | 1 |
People v. Garciared2 sentences2016They rely on cases holding that “the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law.” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 558, fn. 13 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; see also Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 8-9 [ 57 L.Ed.2d 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ].) Here, however, the reversal was not based on an error of law. 2 Rather, the jury’s failure to return a verdict on the lesser related offense was due to an error of law. 2016They rely on cases holding that “the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law.” (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 558, fn. 13 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 684 P.2d 826 ]; see also Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 8-9 [ 57 L.Ed.2d 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ].) Here, however, the reversal was not based on an error of law. 2 Rather, the jury’s failure to return a verdict on the lesser related offense was due to an error of law. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cainred2 sentences1996(Cf. People v. Bonillas, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 770-771; see also People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 55 [ 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 481 , 892 P.2d 1224 ]; People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 701 [ 268 Cal. Rptr. 706 , 789 P.2d 887 ].) Under such a scenario, the consequence of the "mistake in the law" should be borne by the People, rather than the defendant. 1996(Cf. People v. Bonillas, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 770-771; see also People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 55 [ 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 481 , 892 P.2d 1224 ]; People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 701 [ 268 Cal. Rptr. 706 , 789 P.2d 887 ].) Under such a scenario, the consequence of the "mistake in the law" should be borne by the People, rather than the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Turnergreen2 sentences1996(Cf. People v. Bonillas, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 770-771; see also People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 55 [ 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 481 , 892 P.2d 1224 ]; People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 701 [ 268 Cal. Rptr. 706 , 789 P.2d 887 ].) Under such a scenario, the consequence of the "mistake in the law" should be borne by the People, rather than the defendant. 1996(Cf. People v. Bonillas, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 770-771; see also People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 55 [ 40 Cal. Rptr.2d 481 , 892 P.2d 1224 ]; People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 701 [ 268 Cal. Rptr. 706 , 789 P.2d 887 ].) Under such a scenario, the consequence of the "mistake in the law" should be borne by the People, rather than the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Tateogreen2 sentences1982To be sure, we now hold it error to admit Catherine's testimony against defendant; but "reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case." ( Id. at p. 15 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 12].) Rather, the matter is governed by the settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law. ( Ibid. ; accord, United States v. Tateo (1964) 377 U.S. 463, 465 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 448, 450 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 ], and cases cited.) [59] It follows that ther 1982To be sure, we now hold it error to admit Catherine's testimony against defendant; but "reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case." ( Id. at p. 15 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 12].) Rather, the matter is governed by the settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law. ( Ibid. ; accord, United States v. Tateo (1964) 377 U.S. 463, 465 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 448, 450 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 ], and cases cited.) [59] It follows that ther | 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. Figueroa
green
2 sentences2022In such circumstances, the courts have held the defendant is not entitled to a “windfall” (Figueroa, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 71 ) and “[t]he People are entitled to an opportunity to prove beyond a reasonable doubt” robbery with the new elements included and to proffer evidence that may not have been necessary or relevant under the law in effect at the time of trial. 2018Double Jeopardy Principles “In proceedings before the juvenile court juveniles are entitled to constitutional protections against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense.” (Richard M. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d. 370, 375.) The constitutional protection against double jeopardy generally prohibits retrial for the same offense when a conviction is reversed because of insufficient evidence (People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225 ) but not “after a reversal premised on error of law.” (People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 , superseded by statute on other grounds. | 2 | 2018–2022 |
People v. Goolsby
green
2 sentences2018Double Jeopardy Principles “In proceedings before the juvenile court juveniles are entitled to constitutional protections against twice being placed in jeopardy for the same offense.” (Richard M. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d. 370, 375.) The constitutional protection against double jeopardy generally prohibits retrial for the same offense when a conviction is reversed because of insufficient evidence (People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225 ) but not “after a reversal premised on error of law.” (People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 , superseded by statute on other grounds. 2018Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220 , 1225, 198 Cal.Rptr.3d 580 ) but not "after a reversal premised on error of law." ( People v . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. D.N. (In re D.N.)
green
1 sentence2022The court should of course consider the requirements of section 3051 and Franklin on remand. 109 implicated].)” (In re D.N. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 898, 902-903 .) There is a “settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law.” (Shirley, 31 Cal.3d at p. 71 ; accord, People v. Otto (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1088, 1116 .) In Mil, after concluding that omission of the reckless disregard element from the trial court’s jury instruction was prejudicial under Chapman, our Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal “with directions to rem | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Eagle CA3
green
1 sentence2018(People v. Eagle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 275, 280 .) However, federal courts have held that double jeopardy protections do not bar retrial where an intervening judicial decision clarifies that the law requires “ ‘evidence that was not theretofore generally understood to be essential to prove the crime . . . .’ ” (United States v. Wacker (10th Cir. 1995) 72 F.3d 1453, 1465 [double jeopardy did not bar retrial where the government presented its proof based on the then- governing rule in the Circuit and, while the case was on appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that additional evidence was necessa | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Connecticut v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1984However, the Johnson dissent explicitly distinguished the case it had before it from cases where the jury was prevented from considering the issue of intent. ( Johnson, supra, 460 U.S. at pp. 96-97, and fn. 3 [ 74 L.Ed.2d at p. 840 , 103 S.Ct. at pp. 982-983] (dis. opn. of Powell, J.).) Moreover, the dissent indicated that if "an execution-style slaying occurred, in which the defendant tied up his victim and shot him repeatedly in the head, it would be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the presence of a conclusive presumption instruction would not have affected a jury's finding of intent. " 1984However, the Johnson dissent explicitly distinguished the case it had before it from cases where the jury was prevented from considering the issue of intent. ( Johnson, supra, 460 U.S. at pp. 96-97, and fn. 3 [ 74 L.Ed.2d at p. 840 , 103 S.Ct. at pp. 982-983] (dis. opn. of Powell, J.).) Moreover, the dissent indicated that if "an execution-style slaying occurred, in which the defendant tied up his victim and shot him repeatedly in the head, it would be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the presence of a conclusive presumption instruction would not have affected a jury's finding of intent. " | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Carlos v. Superior Court
red
2 sentences1984As we explained in People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 243 , 641 P.2d 775 ], "`reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case.' [Citing Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 15 ( 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 12 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ).] Rather, the matter is governed by the settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law." [*] Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [1] People v. Cantrell (1 1984As we explained in People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 243 , 641 P.2d 775 ], "`reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case.' [Citing Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 15 ( 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 12 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ).] Rather, the matter is governed by the settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law." [*] Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [1] People v. Cantrell (1 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Cantrell
red
2 sentences1984As we explained in People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 243 , 641 P.2d 775 ], "`reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case.' [Citing Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 15 ( 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 12 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ).] Rather, the matter is governed by the settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law." [*] Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [1] People v. Cantrell (1 1984As we explained in People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 243 , 641 P.2d 775 ], "`reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case.' [Citing Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 15 ( 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 12 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ).] Rather, the matter is governed by the settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law." [*] Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [1] People v. Cantrell (1 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Thornton
red
2 sentences1984As we explained in People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 243 , 641 P.2d 775 ], "`reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case.' [Citing Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 15 ( 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 12 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ).] Rather, the matter is governed by the settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law." [*] Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [1] People v. Cantrell (1 1984As we explained in People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18, 71 [ 181 Cal. Rptr. 243 , 641 P.2d 775 ], "`reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case.' [Citing Burks v. United States (1978) 437 U.S. 1, 15 ( 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 12 , 98 S.Ct. 2141 ).] Rather, the matter is governed by the settled rule that the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit retrial after a reversal premised on error of law." [*] Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. [1] People v. Cantrell (1 | 1 | 1984–1984 |