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 1 courts 1986–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Murtishawgreen2 sentences1986(People v. McClary, supra, at p. 230 ; see also People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 756 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 738 , 631 P.2d 446 ].) The statement was fully consistent with Valdivia’s defense; it did not prejudice him. 6 Accordingly, I concur in the judgment affirming the conviction. 1986(People v. McClary, supra, at p. 230 ; see also People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 756 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 738 , 631 P.2d 446 ].) The statement was fully consistent with Valdivia’s defense; it did not prejudice him. 6 Accordingly, I concur in the judgment affirming the conviction. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bellred1 sentence2015(People v. Bell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 582, 599 [acknowledging Asian Americans as cognizable group].) Other than pointing out that prospective jurors 70 and 89 were among six non- white prospective jurors against whom the prosecution exercised peremptory challenges, Valdivia made no showing that the peremptory challenges were motivated by bias against a particular group. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McClarygreen2 sentences1986Valdivia's statement was an admission, not a confession. ( People v. Diaz, supra, 140 Cal. App.3d 813, 817, fn. 1 ; see also People v. McClary (1977) 20 Cal.3d 218, 230 [ 142 Cal. Rptr. 163 , 571 P.2d 620 ].) Its improper admission into evidence is not reversible error if the People can show beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not contribute to the verdict. ( People v. McClary, supra, at p. 230 ; see also People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 756 [ 175 Cal. Rptr. 738 , 631 P.2d 446 ].) The statement was fully consistent with Valdivia's defense; it did not prejudice him. [6] Accordingly 1986Valdivia's statement was an admission, not a confession. ( People v. Diaz, supra, 140 Cal. App.3d 813, 817, fn. 1 ; see also People v. McClary (1977) 20 Cal.3d 218, 230 [ 142 Cal. Rptr. 163 , 571 P.2d 620 ].) Its improper admission into evidence is not reversible error if the People can show beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not contribute to the verdict. ( People v. McClary, supra, at p. 230 ; see also People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 756 [ 175 Cal. Rptr. 738 , 631 P.2d 446 ].) The statement was fully consistent with Valdivia's defense; it did not prejudice him. [6] Accordingly | 1 | 1 |
People v. Diazgreen1 sentence1986Valdivia's statement was an admission, not a confession. ( People v. Diaz, supra, 140 Cal. App.3d 813, 817, fn. 1 ; see also People v. McClary (1977) 20 Cal.3d 218, 230 [ 142 Cal. Rptr. 163 , 571 P.2d 620 ].) Its improper admission into evidence is not reversible error if the People can show beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not contribute to the verdict. ( People v. McClary, supra, at p. 230 ; see also People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 756 [ 175 Cal. Rptr. 738 , 631 P.2d 446 ].) The statement was fully consistent with Valdivia's defense; it did not prejudice him. [6] Accordingly | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marquez
green
2 sentences2025“When there has been no showing of prejudice, we need not determine whether trial counsel’s performance was deficient.” (In re Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 584, 602 .) DISPOSITION We affirm the order dated June 9, 2023, denying Valdivia’s motion for relief under section 1473.7. 2025“When there has been no showing of prejudice, we need not determine whether trial counsel’s performance was deficient.” (In re Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 584, 602 .) DISPOSITION We affirm the order dated June 9, 2023, denying Valdivia’s motion for relief under section 1473.7. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Tahl
green
2 sentences2025Bestard informed Valdivia that he “would” be subject to removal and exclusion as a result of his plea, and the 4 In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 . 6 commissioner presiding over the hearing also informed Valdivia he “would” face deportation and exclusion. 2025Bestard informed Valdivia that he “would” be subject to removal and exclusion as a result of his plea, and the 4 In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 . 6 commissioner presiding over the hearing also informed Valdivia he “would” face deportation and exclusion. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Munoz
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Munoz (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 160 , 166–167, citing People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 .) 2 probation for four years. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Harvey
green
1 sentence2023(People v. Munoz (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 160 , 166–167, citing People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 .) 2 probation for four years. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hersant v. Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence2015(See, e.g., Hersant v. Department of Social Services (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 997 , 1004- 1005 [employee opposing summary judgment must offer substantial evidence to support a finding in his favor].) As for Valdivia’s claim that she was defamed by various other statements by coworkers referring to her as being “crazy,” that issue is not properly before this court. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.