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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1914–1976 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. Babcockgreen2 sentences1923(People v. Babcock, 160 Cal. 537, 545 [ 117 Pac. 549 ]; People v. Ong Mon Foo, 182 Cal. 697, 705 [ 189 Pac. 690 ]; People v. Steelik, 187 Cal. 361, 377 [ 203 Pac. 78 ].) Any prejudice which may have been caused by misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney during his argument to the jury was removed by the court’s prompt admonition to disregard the improper remarks. *184 The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.- Works, J., and Craig, J., concurred. 1923(People v. Babcock, 160 Cal. 537, 545 [ 117 Pac. 549 ]; People v. Ong Mon Foo, 182 Cal. 697, 705 [ 189 Pac. 690 ]; People v. Steelik, 187 Cal. 361, 377 [ 203 Pac. 78 ].) Any prejudice which may have been caused by misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney during his argument to the jury was removed by the court’s prompt admonition to disregard the improper remarks. *184 The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.- Works, J., and Craig, J., concurred. | 1 | 2 |
People v. McDanielgreen2 sentences1976As was said in the recent Supreme Court case of People v. McDaniel (1976) 16 Cal.3d 156, 176-177 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 545 P.2d 843 ]; “Even assuming prosecutorial miscon *339 duct [where timely objection and/or request for admonition were not made at trial] defendant cannot object unless the misconduct can be said to have contributed materially to the verdict in a closely balanced case or is of such a nature that it could not have been cured by a proper and timely admonition. 1976As was said in the recent Supreme Court case of People v. McDaniel (1976) 16 Cal.3d 156, 176-177 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 467 , 545 P.2d 843 ]; “Even assuming prosecutorial miscon *339 duct [where timely objection and/or request for admonition were not made at trial] defendant cannot object unless the misconduct can be said to have contributed materially to the verdict in a closely balanced case or is of such a nature that it could not have been cured by a proper and timely admonition. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ricegreen2 sentences1974(See People v. Rice (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 730, 743 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 200 ].) We do not view the comments of the prosecutor as constituting Griffin error. 1974(See People v. Rice (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 730, 743 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 200 ].) We do not view the comments of the prosecutor as constituting Griffin error. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Terryred2 sentences1974(People v. Terry (1970) 2 Cal.3d 362, 391 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 466 P.2d 961 ].) Furthermore, this was not a closely balanced case and an admonitory instruction could have eradicated any prejudice. 1974(People v. Terry (1970) 2 Cal.3d 362, 391 [ 85 Cal.Rptr. 409 , 466 P.2d 961 ].) Furthermore, this was not a closely balanced case and an admonitory instruction could have eradicated any prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ong Mon Foogreen2 sentences1923(People v. Babcock, 160 Cal. 537, 545 [ 117 Pac. 549 ]; People v. Ong Mon Foo, 182 Cal. 697, 705 [ 189 Pac. 690 ]; People v. Steelik, 187 Cal. 361, 377 [ 203 Pac. 78 ].) Any prejudice which may have been caused by misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney during his argument to the jury was removed by the court’s prompt admonition to disregard the improper remarks. *184 The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.- Works, J., and Craig, J., concurred. 1923(People v. Babcock, 160 Cal. 537, 545 [ 117 Pac. 549 ]; People v. Ong Mon Foo, 182 Cal. 697, 705 [ 189 Pac. 690 ]; People v. Steelik, 187 Cal. 361, 377 [ 203 Pac. 78 ].) Any prejudice which may have been caused by misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney during his argument to the jury was removed by the court’s prompt admonition to disregard the improper remarks. *184 The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.- Works, J., and Craig, J., concurred. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Steelikgreen2 sentences1923(People v. Babcock, 160 Cal. 537, 545 [ 117 Pac. 549 ]; People v. Ong Mon Foo, 182 Cal. 697, 705 [ 189 Pac. 690 ]; People v. Steelik, 187 Cal. 361, 377 [ 203 Pac. 78 ].) Any prejudice which may have been caused by misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney during his argument to the jury was removed by the court’s prompt admonition to disregard the improper remarks. *184 The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.- Works, J., and Craig, J., concurred. 1923(People v. Babcock, 160 Cal. 537, 545 [ 117 Pac. 549 ]; People v. Ong Mon Foo, 182 Cal. 697, 705 [ 189 Pac. 690 ]; People v. Steelik, 187 Cal. 361, 377 [ 203 Pac. 78 ].) Any prejudice which may have been caused by misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney during his argument to the jury was removed by the court’s prompt admonition to disregard the improper remarks. *184 The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.- Works, J., and Craig, J., concurred. | 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. Hampton
green
2 sentences1957This identical problem arose in People v. Hampton, 47 Cal.2d 239 [ 302 P.2d 300 ], At pages 240-241 the applicable principle is stated in this language: ‘ ‘ The rule is established that unless the harmful results of misconduct of the district attorney cannot be obviated by appropriate instructions of the trial court, error cannot be predicated in this court on such alleged misconduct in the absence of (a) assignment of such misconduct as error; and (b) a request to the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard it. [Citations.] ” Here an objection and appropriate instruction from the court 1957This identical problem arose in People v. Hampton, 47 Cal.2d 239 [ 302 P.2d 300 ], At pages 240-241 the applicable principle is stated in this language: ‘ ‘ The rule is established that unless the harmful results of misconduct of the district attorney cannot be obviated by appropriate instructions of the trial court, error cannot be predicated in this court on such alleged misconduct in the absence of (a) assignment of such misconduct as error; and (b) a request to the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard it. [Citations.] ” Here an objection and appropriate instruction from the court | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Allen v. United States
green
1 sentence1914(Allen v. United States, 164 U. S. 501 , [ 41 L. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.