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 1 courts 1960–1996 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. Lovegreen2 sentences1964In People v. Love (1960) 53 Cal.2d 843, 856 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 665 , 350 P.2d 705 ], we said: “Since the jury has complete discretion to choose between alternative penalties in the light of the objectives of criminal law [citations] the permissible range of inquiry on the issue of penalty is necessarily broad.” We have applied “the broad, liberal rule on admission of evidence that has always existed where a defendant has pleaded guilty and the only issues being tried relate to the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.” (People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 647 [ 343 P.2d 577 ].) We ha 1964In People v. Love (1960) 53 Cal.2d 843, 856 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 665 , 350 P.2d 705 ], we said: “Since the jury has complete discretion to choose between alternative penalties in the light of the objectives of criminal law [citations] the permissible range of inquiry on the issue of penalty is necessarily broad.” We have applied “the broad, liberal rule on admission of evidence that has always existed where a defendant has pleaded guilty and the only issues being tried relate to the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.” (People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 647 [ 343 P.2d 577 ].) We ha | 2 | 4 |
People v. Purvisgreen2 sentences1996In Purvis and Hamilton , we held: If evidence is inadmissible at the guilt phase, it is also inadmissible at the penalty phase; section 190.1 did not render evidence that was inadmissible at the guilt phase admissible at the penalty phase, but merely, in Purvis's words, “broaden[ed] the scope of relevant evidence admissible on the issue of penalty” (People v. Purvis, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 883) or, in Hamilton's words, “broaden[ed] and enlarge[d] the permissible range of inquiry” (People v. Hamilton, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 128, fn. 9). 1996In Purvis and Hamilton , we held: If evidence is inadmissible at the guilt phase, it is also inadmissible at the penalty phase; section 190.1 did not render evidence that was inadmissible at the guilt phase admissible at the *378 penalty phase, but merely, in Purvis 's words, "broaden[ed] the scope of relevant evidence admissible on the issue of penalty" ( People v. Purvis, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 883) or, in Hamilton 's words, "broaden[ed] and enlarge[d] the permissible range of inquiry" ( People v. Hamilton, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 128, fn. 9). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1964In People v. Love (1960) 53 Cal.2d 843, 856 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 665 , 350 P.2d 705 ], we said: “Since the jury has complete discretion to choose between alternative penalties in the light of the objectives of criminal law [citations] the permissible range of inquiry on the issue of penalty is necessarily broad.” We have applied “the broad, liberal rule on admission of evidence that has always existed where a defendant has pleaded guilty and the only issues being tried relate to the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.” (People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 647 [ 343 P.2d 577 ].) We ha 1964In People v. Love (1960) 53 Cal.2d 843, 856 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 665 , 350 P.2d 705 ], we said: “Since the jury has complete discretion to choose between alternative penalties in the light of the objectives of criminal law [citations] the permissible range of inquiry on the issue of penalty is necessarily broad.” We have applied “the broad, liberal rule on admission of evidence that has always existed where a defendant has pleaded guilty and the only issues being tried relate to the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.” (People v. Jones (1959) 52 Cal.2d 636, 647 [ 343 P.2d 577 ].) We ha | 2 | 2 |
People v. Greenred2 sentences1961“We respectfully suggest that the opinion of this Court in People v. Friend was correct, that it was adopted by the Legislature when it enacted section 190.1 of the Penal Code and should be the controlling law in this case. 1 ‘ This Court has repeatedly held that the jury could be informed of the minimum term a person given a life sentence for first degree murder must serve and the minimum average and maximum terms actually being served for first degree murder in California (People v. Purvis, 52 Cal.2d 871, 884 [ 346 P.2d 22 ]; People v. Friend, 47 Cal.2d 749, 755 [ 306 P.2d 463 ] ; People v. 1961“We respectfully suggest that the opinion of this Court in People v. Friend was correct, that it was adopted by the Legislature when it enacted section 190.1 of the Penal Code and should be the controlling law in this case. 1 ‘ This Court has repeatedly held that the jury could be informed of the minimum term a person given a life sentence for first degree murder must serve and the minimum average and maximum terms actually being served for first degree murder in California (People v. Purvis, 52 Cal.2d 871, 884 [ 346 P.2d 22 ]; People v. Friend, 47 Cal.2d 749, 755 [ 306 P.2d 463 ] ; People v. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Friendred2 sentences1961“We respectfully suggest that the opinion of this Court in People v. Friend was correct, that it was adopted by the Legislature when it enacted section 190.1 of the Penal Code and should be the controlling law in this case. 1 ‘ This Court has repeatedly held that the jury could be informed of the minimum term a person given a life sentence for first degree murder must serve and the minimum average and maximum terms actually being served for first degree murder in California (People v. Purvis, 52 Cal.2d 871, 884 [ 346 P.2d 22 ]; People v. Friend, 47 Cal.2d 749, 755 [ 306 P.2d 463 ] ; People v. 1961“We respectfully suggest that the opinion of this Court in People v. Friend was correct, that it was adopted by the Legislature when it enacted section 190.1 of the Penal Code and should be the controlling law in this case. 1 ‘ This Court has repeatedly held that the jury could be informed of the minimum term a person given a life sentence for first degree murder must serve and the minimum average and maximum terms actually being served for first degree murder in California (People v. Purvis, 52 Cal.2d 871, 884 [ 346 P.2d 22 ]; People v. Friend, 47 Cal.2d 749, 755 [ 306 P.2d 463 ] ; People v. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hamiltonred2 sentences1996In Purvis and Hamilton , we held: If evidence is inadmissible at the guilt phase, it is also inadmissible at the penalty phase; section 190.1 did not render evidence that was inadmissible at the guilt phase admissible at the penalty phase, but merely, in Purvis's words, “broaden[ed] the scope of relevant evidence admissible on the issue of penalty” (People v. Purvis, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 883) or, in Hamilton's words, “broaden[ed] and enlarge[d] the permissible range of inquiry” (People v. Hamilton, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 128, fn. 9). 1996In Purvis and Hamilton , we held: If evidence is inadmissible at the guilt phase, it is also inadmissible at the penalty phase; section 190.1 did not render evidence that was inadmissible at the guilt phase admissible at the *378 penalty phase, but merely, in Purvis 's words, "broaden[ed] the scope of relevant evidence admissible on the issue of penalty" ( People v. Purvis, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 883) or, in Hamilton 's words, "broaden[ed] and enlarge[d] the permissible range of inquiry" ( People v. Hamilton, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 128, fn. 9). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.