reversal unless error in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1960–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardosgreen calctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013(Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1447 (Twenty-Nine Palms).) Even under that standard, the erroneous admission or exclusion of relevant evidence cannot be the basis of a reversal unless the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice.	1	1
People v. Leegreen cal · 1987 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 2 sentences 1990(People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666, 676 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 406 , 738 P.2d 752 ].) The People compounded these errors by urging the jury to base its conviction on knowledge alone. 1990(People v. Lee (1987) 43 Cal.3d 666, 676 [ 238 Cal.Rptr. 406 , 738 P.2d 752 ].) The People compounded these errors by urging the jury to base its conviction on knowledge alone.	1	1
People v. Doradogreen cal · 1965 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1965–1965 2 sentences 1965(People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ].) Unlike the improper receipt in evidence of a confession, improperly received admissions do not require a reversal unless the error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 1965(People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 356 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 398 P.2d 361 ].) Unlike the improper receipt in evidence of a confession, improperly received admissions do not require a reversal unless the error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.	1	1
People v. Parhamgreen cal · 1963 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1965–1965 2 sentences 1965(People v. Dorado, supra, at p. 356 ; (People v. Parham, 60 Cal.2d 378, 385 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; Cal. Const., art. 1965(People v. Dorado, supra, at p. 356 ; (People v. Parham, 60 Cal.2d 378, 385 [ 33 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 384 P.2d 1001 ]; Cal. Const., art.	1	1
People v. Robertsgreen cal · 1953 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960 2 sentences 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79	1	1
People v. Brittongreen cal · 1936 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960 2 sentences 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79	1	1
People v. Delhantiegreen · 1912 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960 2 sentences 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79	1	1
People v. Beitzelgreen cal · 1929 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1960 2 sentences 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Brodit green calctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2021“We review a trial court’s admission of evidence under section 1360 for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Roberto V. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1367 ; People v. Brodit (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1330 .) An erroneous admission of evidence does not result in a reversal unless the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (§ 353, subd. (b).) “If admission of the hearsay statements violated a state statute alone, we apply the standard articulated in People v. Watson [citation], and reverse only if there is a reasonable probability of a result more favorable to the defendant in the absence of th	1	2021–2021
Chapman v. California red scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2021(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 .) B. 2021(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18 .) B.	1	2021–2021
People v. ROBERTO V. green calctapp · 2001 2 sentences 2021“We review a trial court’s admission of evidence under section 1360 for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Roberto V. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1367 ; People v. Brodit (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1330 .) An erroneous admission of evidence does not result in a reversal unless the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (§ 353, subd. (b).) “If admission of the hearsay statements violated a state statute alone, we apply the standard articulated in People v. Watson [citation], and reverse only if there is a reasonable probability of a result more favorable to the defendant in the absence of th 2021“We review a trial court’s admission of evidence under section 1360 for abuse of discretion.” (People v. Roberto V. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1367 ; People v. Brodit (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1330 .) An erroneous admission of evidence does not result in a reversal unless the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. (§ 353, subd. (b).) “If admission of the hearsay statements violated a state statute alone, we apply the standard articulated in People v. Watson [citation], and reverse only if there is a reasonable probability of a result more favorable to the defendant in the absence of th	1	2021–2021
People v. Watson green cal · 1956 1 sentence 2020(See Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 580-582; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) In this context, "probability" means "a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility." (Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 682 ; College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 715 .) In assessing an instructional error's prejudicial impact, we consider the " 'natural and probable effect on a party's ability to place his full case before the jury,' " and the likelihood of actual prejudice, considering the state of the evidence, effect of other instructions, effect of cou	1	2020–2020
Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. green cal · 2005 1 sentence 2020(See Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 580-582; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) In this context, "probability" means "a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility." (Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 682 ; College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 715 .) In assessing an instructional error's prejudicial impact, we consider the " 'natural and probable effect on a party's ability to place his full case before the jury,' " and the likelihood of actual prejudice, considering the state of the evidence, effect of other instructions, effect of cou	1	2020–2020
College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court green cal · 1994 1 sentence 2020(See Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 580-582; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) In this context, "probability" means "a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility." (Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 682 ; College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 715 .) In assessing an instructional error's prejudicial impact, we consider the " 'natural and probable effect on a party's ability to place his full case before the jury,' " and the likelihood of actual prejudice, considering the state of the evidence, effect of other instructions, effect of cou	1	2020–2020
Soule v. General Motors Corp. green cal · 1994 1 sentence 2020(See Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 580-582; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) In this context, "probability" means "a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility." (Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659, 682 ; College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 715 .) In assessing an instructional error's prejudicial impact, we consider the " 'natural and probable effect on a party's ability to place his full case before the jury,' " and the likelihood of actual prejudice, considering the state of the evidence, effect of other instructions, effect of cou	1	2020–2020
People v. Cowen green calctapp · 1940 2 sentences 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79	1	1960–1960
People v. Riser green cal · 1956 2 sentences 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79 1960(Cal. Const., art VI, § 4½; People v. Riser, 47 Cal.2d 566 [ 305 P.2d 1 ]; People v. Cowen, 41 Cal.App.2d 824 [ 107 P.2d 659 ].) The burden of establishing the prejudicial nature of an error is upon an appellant. {People v. Britton, 6 Cal.2d 10,13 [ 56 P.2d 491 ].) The object of the code provisions requiring delivery to an indicted defendant of a copy of the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury is to enable him to know the testimony upon which the charge is founded and to make his defense. {People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [ 254 P.2d 501 ]; People v. Beitzel, 207 Cal. 73, 79	1	1960–1960

Where else courts name it

IN 17 (1979–1998) TN 14 (1996–2014) TX 8 (1991–2014) IL 7 (1994–2021) CA 6 (1960–2021) MD 3 (1968–2001)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check