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.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 5 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. Salcidogreen2 sentences2022While defendant did offer to stipulate the predicates had been established and that VBN was a criminal street gang, “the prosecution was not required to accept defense concessions as a sanitized alternative to the full presentation of its case.” (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1149 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390 .) Nor is “the prosecution . . . required to accept a stipulation that would deprive its case of its effectiveness, or to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.” (People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 150 .) More 2011As we have observed, the prosecutor is not required “to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.” (People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 150 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 54 , 186 P.3d 437 ].) Finally, because defendant fails to point to anything in the record suggesting any infirmity in the competency proceeding, we reject his argument that a defective and unfair adjudication of his competence deprived him of due process and reliable guilt, sanity, and penalty determinations in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the California | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lambgreen2 sentences2026As we have observed, the prosecutor is not required ‘to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense’ ”]; Lamb, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 425 [“ ‘the “persuasive power of the concrete and 9 The jury’s instruction on the elements of count 2 provided that Jackson must have “carried within a vehicle a firearm capable of being concealed on the person,” and defined a “firearm capable of being concealed on the person” as any device that, among other requirements, “has a barrel less than 16 inches in length.” 21 particular is often essential to the capacity of jurors to satisfy the obligatio 2026As we have observed, the prosecutor is not required ‘to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense’ ”]; Lamb, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 425 [“ ‘the “persuasive power of the concrete and 9 The jury’s instruction on the elements of count 2 provided that Jackson must have “carried within a vehicle a firearm capable of being concealed on the person,” and defined a “firearm capable of being concealed on the person” as any device that, among other requirements, “has a barrel less than 16 inches in length.” 21 particular is often essential to the capacity of jurors to satisfy the obligatio | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zackgreen1 sentence2022In other words, “the prosecutor is not required ‘to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.’ ” 8 (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 894 , quoting People to establish motive in a prosecution involving violence or the threat of violence against the same victim; “[a] defendant is not entitled to have the jury determine his guilt or innocence on a false presentation that his and the victim’s relationship was peaceful and friendly”]; People v. Guilford (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 651, 661-662 [“ ‘Where a defendant is charged with a violent crime and has or had a previous relationsh | 1 | 1 |
People v. Guilfordgreen1 sentence2022In other words, “the prosecutor is not required ‘to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.’ ” 8 (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 894 , quoting People to establish motive in a prosecution involving violence or the threat of violence against the same victim; “[a] defendant is not entitled to have the jury determine his guilt or innocence on a false presentation that his and the victim’s relationship was peaceful and friendly”]; People v. Guilford (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 651, 661-662 [“ ‘Where a defendant is charged with a violent crime and has or had a previous relationsh | 1 | 1 |
People v. Linkenaugergreen1 sentence2022In other words, “the prosecutor is not required ‘to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.’ ” 8 (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 894 , quoting People to establish motive in a prosecution involving violence or the threat of violence against the same victim; “[a] defendant is not entitled to have the jury determine his guilt or innocence on a false presentation that his and the victim’s relationship was peaceful and friendly”]; People v. Guilford (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 651, 661-662 [“ ‘Where a defendant is charged with a violent crime and has or had a previous relationsh | 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. Clark
red
2 sentences2026Defendant argues that his willingness to stipulate to the victims’ identity made this evidence irrelevant, but “the prosecutor is not required ‘to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.’ ” (Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 894 .) “A trial court cannot compel a prosecutor to accept a stipulation that would deprive the state’s case of its evidentiary persuasiveness or forcefulness.” (People v. Rogers (2013) 57 Cal.4th 296, 329 .) Further, a defendant “ ‘cannot prevent the admission of relevant evidence by claiming not to dispute a fact the prosecution is required to prove beyond 2026There was substantial gang evidence presented in this case, but “the prosecutor is not required ‘to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.’ ” (People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 894 .) Defendant has failed to persuade us that the evidence of his guilt was weak. | 3 | 2022–2026 |
People v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2026Defendant argues that his willingness to stipulate to the victims’ identity made this evidence irrelevant, but “the prosecutor is not required ‘to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.’ ” (Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 894 .) “A trial court cannot compel a prosecutor to accept a stipulation that would deprive the state’s case of its evidentiary persuasiveness or forcefulness.” (People v. Rogers (2013) 57 Cal.4th 296, 329 .) Further, a defendant “ ‘cannot prevent the admission of relevant evidence by claiming not to dispute a fact the prosecution is required to prove beyond | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Steskal
green
1 sentence2026The jury was entitled to learn that the physical evidence . . . supports the prosecution’s theory of the case.’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 356 , quoting Rountree, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) And a “defendant’s not guilty plea put[s] in issue all of the elements of the charged offenses, including the elements he conceded.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 476 .) Thus, by pleading not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, defendant put all elements of his charges at issue. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Rountree
green
2 sentences2026The jury was entitled to learn that the physical evidence . . . supports the prosecution’s theory of the case.’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 356 , quoting Rountree, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) And a “defendant’s not guilty plea put[s] in issue all of the elements of the charged offenses, including the elements he conceded.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 476 .) Thus, by pleading not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, defendant put all elements of his charges at issue. 2026The jury was entitled to learn that the physical evidence . . . supports the prosecution’s theory of the case.’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 356 , quoting Rountree, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) And a “defendant’s not guilty plea put[s] in issue all of the elements of the charged offenses, including the elements he conceded.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 476 .) Thus, by pleading not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, defendant put all elements of his charges at issue. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Cowan
green
1 sentence2026The jury was entitled to learn that the physical evidence . . . supports the prosecution’s theory of the case.’ ” (People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 356 , quoting Rountree, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) And a “defendant’s not guilty plea put[s] in issue all of the elements of the charged offenses, including the elements he conceded.” (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 476 .) Thus, by pleading not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, defendant put all elements of his charges at issue. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Zambrano
red
1 sentence2022While defendant did offer to stipulate the predicates had been established and that VBN was a criminal street gang, “the prosecution was not required to accept defense concessions as a sanitized alternative to the full presentation of its case.” (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1149 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390 .) Nor is “the prosecution . . . required to accept a stipulation that would deprive its case of its effectiveness, or to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.” (People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 150 .) More | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Doolin
green
1 sentence2022While defendant did offer to stipulate the predicates had been established and that VBN was a criminal street gang, “the prosecution was not required to accept defense concessions as a sanitized alternative to the full presentation of its case.” (People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, 1149 , disapproved on other grounds by People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390 .) Nor is “the prosecution . . . required to accept a stipulation that would deprive its case of its effectiveness, or to present its case in the manner preferred by the defense.” (People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 150 .) More | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Garceau
red
1 sentence2008(Garceau, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 182 ; People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 959 .) Defendant also asserts Mrs. Toovey’s testimony recounting the last time she saw her husband alive likely would inflame the emotions of the jury, as would her demeanor, and thus was substantially more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Pinholster
red
1 sentence2008(Garceau, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 182 ; People v. Pinholster, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 959 .) Defendant also asserts Mrs. Toovey’s testimony recounting the last time she saw her husband alive likely would inflame the emotions of the jury, as would her demeanor, and thus was substantially more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.