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 2002–2014 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. Slaughtergreen2 sentences2005In addressing each claim discussed in this opinion, we have considered defendant’s contention that the alleged error violates the federal and California Constitutions, and our rejection of each claim of reversible error includes a determination that the alleged error does not warrant reversal under the state or federal Constitution.” (People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199, fn. 2 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262 ].) 6 Defendant points out that the trial court made the following comment before closing argument at both the guilt and penalty phases: “I’m going to ask the lawyers to tr 2005In addressing each claim discussed in this opinion, we have considered defendant’s contention that the alleged error violates the federal and California Constitutions, and our rejection of each claim of reversible error includes a determination that the alleged error does not warrant reversal under the state or federal Constitution.” (People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199, fn. 2 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477, 47 P.3d 262 ].) 6 Defendant points out that the trial court made the following comment before closing argument at both the guilt and penalty phases: “I’m going to ask the lawyers to tr | 4 | 4 |
People v. Carpentergreen2 sentences2005(See now § 790, subd. (b), as amended by Stats. 1998, ch. 549, § 1; People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1039, fn. 4 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 988 P.2d 531 ].) These statutory revisions are not material to our analysis. 2005(See now § 790, subd. (b), as amended by Stats. 1998, ch. 549, § 1; People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1039, fn. 4 [ 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 988 P.2d 531 ].) These statutory revisions are not material to our analysis. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences2005In addressing each claim discussed in this opinion, we have considered defendant’s contention that the alleged error violates the federal and California Constitutions, and our rejection of each claim of reversible error includes a determination that the alleged error does not warrant reversal under the state or federal Constitution.’ ” (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1215, 1237-1238, fn. 14 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 838 , 117 P.3d 544 ]; see People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199, fn. 2 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477 , 47 P.3d 262 ].) 15 As we have noted in the text, defendant’s proposed instructi 2005In addressing each claim discussed in this opinion, we have considered defendant’s contention that the alleged error violates the federal and California Constitutions, and our rejection of each claim of reversible error includes a determination that the alleged error does not warrant reversal under the state or federal Constitution.’ ” (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1215, 1237-1238, fn. 14 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 838 , 117 P.3d 544 ]; see People v. Slaughter (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1187, 1199, fn. 2 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 477 , 47 P.3d 262 ].) 15 As we have noted in the text, defendant’s proposed instructi | 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. Manriquez
green
1 sentence2014Here, as in People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547 : “‘“In addressing each claim discussed in this opinion, we have considered defendant’s contention that the alleged error violates the federal and California Constitutions, and our rejection of each claim of reversible error includes a determination that the alleged error does not warrant reversal under the state or federal Constitution.”’” (Id. at p. 574, fn. 14 [consolidation upheld].) We have already explained that consolidation was statutorily proper and appellant did not suffer any resulting prejudice. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Guiuan
green
2 sentences2002In addressing each claim discussed in this opinion, we have considered defendant's contention that the alleged error violates the federal and California Constitutions, and our rejection of each claim of reversible error includes a determination that the alleged error does not warrant reversal under the state or federal Constitution. [3] Subsequent to the trial in the present case, we held in People v. Guiuan, supra, 18 Cal.4th 558, 569 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 , 957 P.2d 928 , that the following instruction should be given when an accomplice testifies: "`To the extent an accomplice gives testimony 2002In addressing each claim discussed in this opinion, we have considered defendant's contention that the alleged error violates the federal and California Constitutions, and our rejection of each claim of reversible error includes a determination that the alleged error does not warrant reversal under the state or federal Constitution. [3] Subsequent to the trial in the present case, we held in People v. Guiuan, supra, 18 Cal.4th 558, 569 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 , 957 P.2d 928 , that the following instruction should be given when an accomplice testifies: "`To the extent an accomplice gives testimony | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.