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 1988–2017 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. Raygreen1 sentence2016(People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436-437 (Lucas); see Ray, supra, at p. 349 .) Dunn's claim of ineffective counsel arises from his trial counsel's failure to request a limiting jury instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lucasgreen1 sentence2016(People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436-437 (Lucas); see Ray, supra, at p. 349 .) Dunn's claim of ineffective counsel arises from his trial counsel's failure to request a limiting jury instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ramirezgreen1 sentence2013Under the fresh complaint doctrine, “proof of an extrajudicial complaint, made by the victim of a sexual offense, disclosing the alleged assault, may be admissible for a limited, nonhearsay purpose—namely, to establish the fact of, and the circumstances surrounding, the victim‟s disclosure of the assault to others—whenever the fact that the disclosure was made and the circumstances under which it was made are relevant to the trier of fact‟s determination as to whether the offense occurred.” (People v. Brown (1994) 8 Cal.4th 746, 749-750 (Brown).) The evidence is admissible only “for the limite | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence2013Under the fresh complaint doctrine, “proof of an extrajudicial complaint, made by the victim of a sexual offense, disclosing the alleged assault, may be admissible for a limited, nonhearsay purpose—namely, to establish the fact of, and the circumstances surrounding, the victim‟s disclosure of the assault to others—whenever the fact that the disclosure was made and the circumstances under which it was made are relevant to the trier of fact‟s determination as to whether the offense occurred.” (People v. Brown (1994) 8 Cal.4th 746, 749-750 (Brown).) The evidence is admissible only “for the limite | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mendozagreen2 sentences2009According to defendant, “[vjictim impact evidence does not open the door to urging the jurors to subjectively analyze a case from the viewpoint of how they themselves would react if the defendant murdered their own loved one.” During the guilt phase of a capital trial, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to appeal to the passions of the jurors by urging them to imagine the suffering of the victim: “We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an o 2009According to defendant, “[vjictim impact evidence does not open the door to urging the jurors to subjectively analyze a case from the viewpoint of how they themselves would react if the defendant murdered their own loved one.” During the guilt phase of a capital trial, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to appeal to the passions of the jurors by urging them to imagine the suffering of the victim: “We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an o | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stansburygreen2 sentences2009According to defendant, “[vjictim impact evidence does not open the door to urging the jurors to subjectively analyze a case from the viewpoint of how they themselves would react if the defendant murdered their own loved one.” During the guilt phase of a capital trial, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to appeal to the passions of the jurors by urging them to imagine the suffering of the victim: “We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an o 2009According to defendant, “[vjictim impact evidence does not open the door to urging the jurors to subjectively analyze a case from the viewpoint of how they themselves would react if the defendant murdered their own loved one.” During the guilt phase of a capital trial, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to appeal to the passions of the jurors by urging them to imagine the suffering of the victim: “We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an o | 1 | 1 |
People v. Haskettgreen2 sentences2009According to defendant, “[vjictim impact evidence does not open the door to urging the jurors to subjectively analyze a case from the viewpoint of how they themselves would react if the defendant murdered their own loved one.” During the guilt phase of a capital trial, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to appeal to the passions of the jurors by urging them to imagine the suffering of the victim: “We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an o 2009According to defendant, “[vjictim impact evidence does not open the door to urging the jurors to subjectively analyze a case from the viewpoint of how they themselves would react if the defendant murdered their own loved one.” During the guilt phase of a capital trial, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to appeal to the passions of the jurors by urging them to imagine the suffering of the victim: “We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an o | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leonardgreen2 sentences2009According to defendant, “[vjictim impact evidence does not open the door to urging the jurors to subjectively analyze a case from the viewpoint of how they themselves would react if the defendant murdered their own loved one.” During the guilt phase of a capital trial, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to appeal to the passions of the jurors by urging them to imagine the suffering of the victim: “We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an o 2009According to defendant, “[vjictim impact evidence does not open the door to urging the jurors to subjectively analyze a case from the viewpoint of how they themselves would react if the defendant murdered their own loved one.” During the guilt phase of a capital trial, it is misconduct for a prosecutor to appeal to the passions of the jurors by urging them to imagine the suffering of the victim: “We have settled that an appeal to the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim is misconduct at the guilt phase of trial; an appeal for sympathy for the victim is out of place during an o | 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. Montiel
red
2 sentences2017The holding was premised on the conclusion that the expert’s testimony was not offered for its truth and therefore did not constitute hearsay. ( Montiel, supra, 5 Cal.4th 877, 919 ; see Sanchez, at p. 678.) In Sanchez, the court rejected the legal fiction that an expert’s testimony about case-specific facts is not offered for its truth. 2017The holding was premised on the conclusion that the expert’s testimony was not offered for its truth and therefore did not constitute hearsay. ( Montiel, supra, 5 Cal.4th 877, 919 ; see Sanchez, at p. 678.) In Sanchez, the court rejected the legal fiction that an expert’s testimony about case-specific facts is not offered for its truth. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Bell
red
2 sentences2015Moreover, the court issued the limiting jury instruction described in People v. Bell, supra, 40 Cal.4th 582 . 2015Moreover, the court issued the limiting jury instruction described in People v. Bell, supra, 40 Cal.4th 582 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Oregon v. Hass
green
2 sentences1988In Oregon v. Hass (1975) 420 U.S. 714 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 570 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 ], the prosecution was permitted to admit items of evidence which impeached the defendant’s testimony. 1988In Oregon v. Hass (1975) 420 U.S. 714 [ 43 L.Ed.2d 570 , 95 S.Ct. 1215 ], the prosecution was permitted to admit items of evidence which impeached the defendant’s testimony. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.