7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2015 0 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. Stankewitzgreen2 sentences1988(People v. Stankewitz (1982) 32 Cal.3d 80, 91-92 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 611 , 648 P.2d 578 , 23 A.L.R.4th 476 ]; accord, People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 283 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 431 P.2d 228 ].) 8 We see no reason to hold otherwise under the facts presented here. *540 Section 1368 provides that if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant,” the court shall inquire of defense counsel regarding his client’s competence and, if counsel believes that defendant may be incompetent, the court shall order a hearing on the matter. 1988(People v. Stankewitz (1982) 32 Cal.3d 80, 91-92 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 611 , 648 P.2d 578 , 23 A.L.R.4th 476 ]; accord, People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 283 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 431 P.2d 228 ].) 8 We see no reason to hold otherwise under the facts presented here. *540 Section 1368 provides that if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant,” the court shall inquire of defense counsel regarding his client’s competence and, if counsel believes that defendant may be incompetent, the court shall order a hearing on the matter. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Laudermilkgreen2 sentences1988(People v. Stankewitz (1982) 32 Cal.3d 80, 91-92 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 611 , 648 P.2d 578 , 23 A.L.R.4th 476 ]; accord, People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 283 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 431 P.2d 228 ].) 8 We see no reason to hold otherwise under the facts presented here. *540 Section 1368 provides that if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant,” the court shall inquire of defense counsel regarding his client’s competence and, if counsel believes that defendant may be incompetent, the court shall order a hearing on the matter. 1988(People v. Stankewitz (1982) 32 Cal.3d 80, 91-92 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 611 , 648 P.2d 578 , 23 A.L.R.4th 476 ]; accord, People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 Cal.2d 272, 283 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 431 P.2d 228 ].) 8 We see no reason to hold otherwise under the facts presented here. *540 Section 1368 provides that if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant,” the court shall inquire of defense counsel regarding his client’s competence and, if counsel believes that defendant may be incompetent, the court shall order a hearing on the matter. | 2 | 2 |
Pate v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1990The section further provides that even if defense counsel believes his client is competent, the court may, in its discretion, order a competency hearing. (ง 1368, subd. (b).) Once the hearing is ordered, "all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined." ( Id., subd. (c).) (2) It has long been established that the conviction of an accused while he is legally incompetent violates due process. ( Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 822 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ].) Indeed, the Unit 1990The section further provides that even if defense counsel believes his client is competent, the court may, in its discretion, order a competency hearing. (ง 1368, subd. (b).) Once the hearing is ordered, "all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined." ( Id., subd. (c).) (2) It has long been established that the conviction of an accused while he is legally incompetent violates due process. ( Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 822 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ].) Indeed, the Unit | 1 | 1 |
Drope v. Missourigreen2 sentences1990The section further provides that even if defense counsel believes his client is competent, the court may, in its discretion, order a competency hearing. (ง 1368, subd. (b).) Once the hearing is ordered, "all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined." ( Id., subd. (c).) (2) It has long been established that the conviction of an accused while he is legally incompetent violates due process. ( Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 822 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ].) Indeed, the Unit 1990The section further provides that even if defense counsel believes his client is competent, the court may, in its discretion, order a competency hearing. (ง 1368, subd. (b).) Once the hearing is ordered, "all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined." ( Id., subd. (c).) (2) It has long been established that the conviction of an accused while he is legally incompetent violates due process. ( Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 822 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ].) Indeed, the Unit | 1 | 1 |
People v. Halegreen2 sentences1990The section further provides that even if defense counsel believes his client is competent, the court may, in its discretion, order a competency hearing. (ง 1368, subd. (b).) Once the hearing is ordered, "all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined." ( Id., subd. (c).) (2) It has long been established that the conviction of an accused while he is legally incompetent violates due process. ( Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 822 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ].) Indeed, the Unit 1990The section further provides that even if defense counsel believes his client is competent, the court may, in its discretion, order a competency hearing. (ง 1368, subd. (b).) Once the hearing is ordered, "all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of the present mental competence of the defendant has been determined." ( Id., subd. (c).) (2) It has long been established that the conviction of an accused while he is legally incompetent violates due process. ( Pate v. Robinson (1966) 383 U.S. 375, 385 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815, 822 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ].) Indeed, the Unit | 1 | 1 |
People v. Humphreygreen2 sentences1979Nevertheless, the decision of the Court of Appeal for the First District in People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 760 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 770 ], in interpreting that section, holds that a defendant is not entitled to a trial on the issue of his mental competence merely upon the statement of defense counsel, but that there must be objective substantial evidence of doubt as to the defendant’s mental competence before he is entitled to a full hearing pursuant to section 1368 (see also People v. Johnson (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 866, 870-871 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 852 ]; People v. Humphrey (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 1979Nevertheless, the decision of the Court of Appeal for the First District in People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 760 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 770 ], in interpreting that section, holds that a defendant is not entitled to a trial on the issue of his mental competence merely upon the statement of defense counsel, but that there must be objective substantial evidence of doubt as to the defendant’s mental competence before he is entitled to a full hearing pursuant to section 1368 (see also People v. Johnson (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 866, 870-871 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 852 ]; People v. Humphrey (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Haysgreen2 sentences1979Nevertheless, the decision of the Court of Appeal for the First District in People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 760 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 770 ], in interpreting that section, holds that a defendant is not entitled to a trial on the issue of his mental competence merely upon the statement of defense counsel, but that there must be objective substantial evidence of doubt as to the defendant’s mental competence before he is entitled to a full hearing pursuant to section 1368 (see also People v. Johnson (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 866, 870-871 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 852 ]; People v. Humphrey (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 1979Nevertheless, the decision of the Court of Appeal for the First District in People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 760 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 770 ], in interpreting that section, holds that a defendant is not entitled to a trial on the issue of his mental competence merely upon the statement of defense counsel, but that there must be objective substantial evidence of doubt as to the defendant’s mental competence before he is entitled to a full hearing pursuant to section 1368 (see also People v. Johnson (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 866, 870-871 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 852 ]; People v. Humphrey (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1979Nevertheless, the decision of the Court of Appeal for the First District in People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 760 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 770 ], in interpreting that section, holds that a defendant is not entitled to a trial on the issue of his mental competence merely upon the statement of defense counsel, but that there must be objective substantial evidence of doubt as to the defendant’s mental competence before he is entitled to a full hearing pursuant to section 1368 (see also People v. Johnson (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 866, 870-871 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 852 ]; People v. Humphrey (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 1979Nevertheless, the decision of the Court of Appeal for the First District in People v. Hays (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 755, 760 [ 126 Cal.Rptr. 770 ], in interpreting that section, holds that a defendant is not entitled to a trial on the issue of his mental competence merely upon the statement of defense counsel, but that there must be objective substantial evidence of doubt as to the defendant’s mental competence before he is entitled to a full hearing pursuant to section 1368 (see also People v. Johnson (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 866, 870-871 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 852 ]; People v. Humphrey (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d | 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. Medina
green
2 sentences1991Once the hearing is ordered, “all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of [defendant’s] present mental competence has been determined.” (Id., subd. (c).) Defendant makes the same due process claim that we thoroughly discussed and rejected in People v. Medina, supra, 51 Cal.3d 870, 881-885 . 1991Once the hearing is ordered, "all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of [defendant's] present mental competence has been determined." ( Id., subd. (c).) [27] Defendant makes the same due process claim that we thoroughly discussed and rejected in People v. Medina, supra, 51 Cal.3d 870, 881-885 . | 2 | 1990–1991 |
People v. Blackburn
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Blackburn (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 685, 691-692 ; see Evid. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Fontana
green
1 sentence2014(Id., § 782, subd. (a)(4).)” (People v. Fontana (2010) 49 Cal.4th 351, 362 .) An offer of proof is sufficient if it demonstrates how the proffered evidence is relevant to attacking the witness’s credibility under the factors listed in Evidence Code section 780. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Daggett
green
1 sentence2013Although section 1103, subdivision (c) generally precludes admission of a complaining witness's past sexual conduct, such evidence may be admissible when offered to attack the credibility of the complaining witness and when presented as required by section 782: "A written motion must be made which includes an offer of proof of the relevancy of the evidence of sexual conduct and its relevancy in attacking the credibility of the complaining witness." (Daggett, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 757 , citing § 782, subd. (a)(1), (2).) If the court finds that the offer of proof is sufficient, the court s | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Rioz
green
1 sentence2013Although section 1103, subdivision (c) generally precludes admission of a complaining witness's past sexual conduct, such evidence may be admissible when offered to attack the credibility of the complaining witness and when presented as required by section 782: "A written motion must be made which includes an offer of proof of the relevancy of the evidence of sexual conduct and its relevancy in attacking the credibility of the complaining witness." (Daggett, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 757 , citing § 782, subd. (a)(1), (2).) If the court finds that the offer of proof is sufficient, the court s | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Tapia v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1991Once the hearing is ordered, "all proceedings in the criminal prosecution shall be suspended until the question of [defendant's] present mental competence has been determined." ( Id., subd. (c).) [27] Defendant makes the same due process claim that we thoroughly discussed and rejected in People v. Medina, supra, 51 Cal.3d 870, 881-885 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.