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 3 courts 1969–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Raleyred1 sentence2025The standard jury instructions defining first degree-murder special circumstance (CALJIC No. 8.24), as well as the torture-murder special circumstance (CALJIC No. 8.81.18), have “been approved as a ‘precise and correct statement of the law.’ ” (Raley, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 900.) Those instructions do not define “ ‘sadistic purpose’ ” as requiring proof of sexual pleasure and “[w]e have used the expression ‘sadistic purpose’ ourselves without requiring further definition.” (Ibid.) We have also said that “there is no legal definition of the term.” (Id. at p. 901.) 108 PEOPLE v. ALVAREZ Opinion | 1 | 1 |
People v. McCurdygreen1 sentence2025(See McCurdy, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 1076 [“Even assuming futility could excuse defendant’s failure to renew his motion, the court’s isolated remark does not establish irreversible hostility to changing venue”].) To be clear, we are not applying the partial waiver approach from Jenkins here, but, in any event, even if Alvarez’s claim had “been waived to the extent it is based upon occurrences at voir dire” (Jenkins, 44 PEOPLE v. ALVAREZ Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. at p. 946), the result would be the same given Alvarez’s reliance on evidence from voir dire. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Murraygreen1 sentence2019(See Wolfe, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [jury could infer subjective awareness from educational 9 program on impaired driving decades before collision and warning on DMV form five years before collision]; People v. Murray (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 734, 745 [jury could infer subjective awareness from alcohol classes taken three years before collision, even if evidence might not establish awareness of course material with certainty].) Alvarez's trainings nine months before the collision were more recent than the programs cited in Wolfe and Murray. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wolfegreen1 sentence2019(See Wolfe, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 683 [jury could infer subjective awareness from educational 9 program on impaired driving decades before collision and warning on DMV form five years before collision]; People v. Murray (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 734, 745 [jury could infer subjective awareness from alcohol classes taken three years before collision, even if evidence might not establish awareness of course material with certainty].) Alvarez's trainings nine months before the collision were more recent than the programs cited in Wolfe and Murray. | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. State of Californiagreen1 sentence1999The Telesco and Berner declarations together with the documentary evidence constitute substantial evidence the absence of a median barrier “ ‘was the result of or conformed to a design approved by the public entity vested *735 with discretionary authority.’ ” (Higgins, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 186, citing Cameron v. State of California, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 326 .) Finally, Alvarez’s claim that the State’s evidence must show what factors the State weighed in deciding to install a median barrier and what factors ultimately persuaded the engineers that a median barrier would not be appropriat | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences1969He complains that he was not given, as were the defendants in *465 Lara, a "long" hearing on the issue of waiver; but the length of that hearing resulted principally from the introduction of conflicting expert testimony on Alvarez' claim of mental retardation, an issue not involved in the present case. [15] Finally, appellant charges that the explicit finding of waiver made in Lara was not made here; but "Although it is good practice for the trial court to make an explicit finding that a defendant waived his constitutional rights, no such finding is required; a finding of waiver may be implied 1969He complains that he was not given, as were the defendants in *465 Lara, a "long" hearing on the issue of waiver; but the length of that hearing resulted principally from the introduction of conflicting expert testimony on Alvarez' claim of mental retardation, an issue not involved in the present case. [15] Finally, appellant charges that the explicit finding of waiver made in Lara was not made here; but "Although it is good practice for the trial court to make an explicit finding that a defendant waived his constitutional rights, no such finding is required; a finding of waiver may be implied | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1969He complains that he was not given, as were the defendants in *465 Lara, a "long" hearing on the issue of waiver; but the length of that hearing resulted principally from the introduction of conflicting expert testimony on Alvarez' claim of mental retardation, an issue not involved in the present case. [15] Finally, appellant charges that the explicit finding of waiver made in Lara was not made here; but "Although it is good practice for the trial court to make an explicit finding that a defendant waived his constitutional rights, no such finding is required; a finding of waiver may be implied 1969He complains that he was not given, as were the defendants in *465 Lara, a "long" hearing on the issue of waiver; but the length of that hearing resulted principally from the introduction of conflicting expert testimony on Alvarez' claim of mental retardation, an issue not involved in the present case. [15] Finally, appellant charges that the explicit finding of waiver made in Lara was not made here; but "Although it is good practice for the trial court to make an explicit finding that a defendant waived his constitutional rights, no such finding is required; a finding of waiver may be implied | 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. Montoya
green
2 sentences2019The court articulated the general standard for the accusatory pleading test before considering its application in a multiple conviction case. ( Montoya , supra , 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1035-1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 .) 6 "Thus, Montoya intended its rule not only to apply in the context of multiple convictions, but also in the context of determining whether instructions on a *789 lesser offense were warranted." ( Munoz , supra , 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 158 , 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 314 .) Indeed, Macias and Munoz , both single-conviction cases, undermine Alvarez's claim. 2019The court articulated the general standard for the accusatory pleading test before considering its application in a multiple conviction case. ( Montoya , supra , 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1035-1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 .) 6 "Thus, Montoya intended its rule not only to apply in the context of multiple convictions, but also in the context of determining whether instructions on a *789 lesser offense were warranted." ( Munoz , supra , 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 158 , 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 314 .) Indeed, Macias and Munoz , both single-conviction cases, undermine Alvarez's claim. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Munoz
green
2 sentences2019The court articulated the general standard for the accusatory pleading test before considering its application in a multiple conviction case. ( Montoya , supra , 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1035-1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 .) 6 "Thus, Montoya intended its rule not only to apply in the context of multiple convictions, but also in the context of determining whether instructions on a *789 lesser offense were warranted." ( Munoz , supra , 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 158 , 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 314 .) Indeed, Macias and Munoz , both single-conviction cases, undermine Alvarez's claim. 2019The court articulated the general standard for the accusatory pleading test before considering its application in a multiple conviction case. ( Montoya , supra , 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1035-1036, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 , 94 P.3d 1098 .) 6 "Thus, Montoya intended its rule not only to apply in the context of multiple convictions, but also in the context of determining whether instructions on a *789 lesser offense were warranted." ( Munoz , supra , 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 158 , 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 314 .) Indeed, Macias and Munoz , both single-conviction cases, undermine Alvarez's claim. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2019The trial judge reasonably construed Alvarez's remarks to responding officers in the same manner, stating he showed "no remorse" or "any type of concern for anyone but himself." Moreover, Moore mentioned the defendant's apparent lack of remorse in outlining the facts, not in evaluating whether there was sufficient evidence of implied malice. ( Moore, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at pp. 940, 941−942.) 13 As the Supreme Court recognized in Watson, "a defendant may be charged with second degree murder upon facts which also would support a charge of vehicular manslaughter." (Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d at | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Moore
green
1 sentence2019The trial judge reasonably construed Alvarez's remarks to responding officers in the same manner, stating he showed "no remorse" or "any type of concern for anyone but himself." Moreover, Moore mentioned the defendant's apparent lack of remorse in outlining the facts, not in evaluating whether there was sufficient evidence of implied malice. ( Moore, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at pp. 940, 941−942.) 13 As the Supreme Court recognized in Watson, "a defendant may be charged with second degree murder upon facts which also would support a charge of vehicular manslaughter." (Watson, supra, 30 Cal.3d at | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Olivas
green
1 sentence2019(Olivas, supra, 172 Cal.App.3d at p. 988 .) Alvarez's claim that this case is "indistinguishable" from cases involving gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated does not convince us otherwise. 4 Alvarez attempts to distinguish Moore by arguing the defendant there showed no remorse after the collision. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Ochoa
green
1 sentence2014“Representation does not become deficient for failing to make meritless objections.” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 463 .) 17. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Levin v. State of California
green
2 sentences1999Johnston v. County of Yolo (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 33 ] and Levin v. State of California (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 223 ] do not support Alvarez’s claim. 1999Johnston v. County of Yolo (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 33 ] and Levin v. State of California (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 223 ] do not support Alvarez’s claim. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Johnston v. County of Yolo
green
2 sentences1999Johnston v. County of Yolo (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 33 ] and Levin v. State of California (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 223 ] do not support Alvarez’s claim. 1999Johnston v. County of Yolo (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 33 ] and Levin v. State of California (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 410 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 223 ] do not support Alvarez’s claim. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Cameron v. State of California
green
1 sentence1999The Telesco and Berner declarations together with the documentary evidence constitute substantial evidence the absence of a median barrier “ ‘was the result of or conformed to a design approved by the public entity vested *735 with discretionary authority.’ ” (Higgins, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 186, citing Cameron v. State of California, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 326 .) Finally, Alvarez’s claim that the State’s evidence must show what factors the State weighed in deciding to install a median barrier and what factors ultimately persuaded the engineers that a median barrier would not be appropriat | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.