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 2014–2026 4 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. Sivongxxaygreen2 sentences2026On the contrary, with a comprehensive jury waiver such as the one entered below, absent unusual circumstances not present here ‘ “[i]t is settled that where a defendant waives a jury trial he is deemed to have consented to a trial of all of the issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury.” ’ ([Citations]; see generally 6 LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure (4th ed. 2015) § 22.1(h), p. 48 [‘A jury waiver generally waives the right to a jury determination of all of the elements of an offense, including facts that authorize a higher sentencing range, treated as elements under the Cou 2026On the contrary, with a comprehensive jury waiver such as the one entered below, absent unusual circumstances not present here ‘ “[i]t is settled that where a defendant waives a jury trial he is deemed to have consented to a trial of all of the issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury.” ’ ([Citations]; see generally 6 LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure (4th ed. 2015) § 22.1(h), p. 48 [‘A jury waiver generally waives the right to a jury determination of all of the elements of an offense, including facts that authorize a higher sentencing range, treated as elements under the Cou | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jarmongreen2 sentences2017On the contrary, with a comprehensive jury waiver such as the one entered below, absent unusual *172 circumstances not present here " '[i]t is settled that where a defendant waives a jury trial he is deemed to have consented to a trial of all of the issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury.' " ( People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84 , 94, 77 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 453 P.2d 721 ( Berutko ), quoting People v. Russell (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 529 , 532, 16 Cal.Rptr. 9 ; see also People v. Jarmon (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1345 , 1354-1355, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 9 ; 5 see generally 6 LaFave et al., Crim 2017On the contrary, with a comprehensive jury waiver such as the one entered below, absent unusual *172 circumstances not present here " '[i]t is settled that where a defendant waives a jury trial he is deemed to have consented to a trial of all of the issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury.' " ( People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84 , 94, 77 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 453 P.2d 721 ( Berutko ), quoting People v. Russell (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 529 , 532, 16 Cal.Rptr. 9 ; see also People v. Jarmon (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1345 , 1354-1355, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 9 ; 5 see generally 6 LaFave et al., Crim | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mooregreen1 sentence2014(See In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 440 [“Because intent for purposes of Penal Code section 288 can seldom be proven by direct evidence, it may be inferred from the circumstances.”]; People v. Moore (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 197, 204 [intent to annoy or molest a child may be reasonably inferred from the overt act].) We point out that the trial court engaged in section 352’s weighing process, admitted only one of the three images into evidence, and allowed prosecution witnesses to briefly describe the other two.8 It also issued a comprehensive jury instruction detailing the correct use | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mariah T.green1 sentence2014(See In re Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 440 [“Because intent for purposes of Penal Code section 288 can seldom be proven by direct evidence, it may be inferred from the circumstances.”]; People v. Moore (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 197, 204 [intent to annoy or molest a child may be reasonably inferred from the overt act].) We point out that the trial court engaged in section 352’s weighing process, admitted only one of the three images into evidence, and allowed prosecution witnesses to briefly describe the other two.8 It also issued a comprehensive jury instruction detailing the correct use | 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. Berutko
green
2 sentences2025On the contrary, with a comprehensive jury waiver such as the one entered below, absent unusual circumstances not present here ‘ “[i]t is settled that where a defendant waives a jury trial he is deemed to have consented to a trial of all of the issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury.” ’ (People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84 , 94 . . . , quoting People v. Russell (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 529, 532 . . . .)” (Id. at pp. 171–172, italic omitted.) The majority reiterated the point in responding to the dissent’s conclusion to the contrary, stating “The dissenting justices apparentl 2024On the contrary, with a comprehensive jury waiver such as the one entered below, absent unusual circumstances not present here ‘ “[i]t is settled that where a defendant waives a jury trial he is deemed to have consented to a trial of all of the issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury.” ’ (People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84 , 94 . . . , quoting People v. Russell (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 529, 532 . . . .)” (Id., at pp. 171, 173, italics omitted.) The majority reiterated the point in responding to the dissent’s conclusion to the contrary, stating “The dissenting justices appare | 4 | 2017–2025 |
People v. Russell
green
2 sentences2025On the contrary, with a comprehensive jury waiver such as the one entered below, absent unusual circumstances not present here ‘ “[i]t is settled that where a defendant waives a jury trial he is deemed to have consented to a trial of all of the issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury.” ’ (People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84 , 94 . . . , quoting People v. Russell (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 529, 532 . . . .)” (Id. at pp. 171–172, italic omitted.) The majority reiterated the point in responding to the dissent’s conclusion to the contrary, stating “The dissenting justices apparentl 2024On the contrary, with a comprehensive jury waiver such as the one entered below, absent unusual circumstances not present here ‘ “[i]t is settled that where a defendant waives a jury trial he is deemed to have consented to a trial of all of the issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury.” ’ (People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84 , 94 . . . , quoting People v. Russell (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 529, 532 . . . .)” (Id., at pp. 171, 173, italics omitted.) The majority reiterated the point in responding to the dissent’s conclusion to the contrary, stating “The dissenting justices appare | 4 | 2017–2025 |
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.