6 California opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maas v. Superior Court of San Diego Countygreen2 sentences2025(See Maas, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 977 [oral hearing not required].) Rather, in our view, once a referral is made, the full screening and acceptance process is pending. 13 Regardless, even if we were to consider the initial screening hearing separately, the People note that the decision to screen a defendant is also discretionary and that, in at least one case, Judge Davis has declined to screen a defendant upon determining that they would not be a good fit for BHC. 2025(See Maas, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 977 [oral hearing not required].) Rather, in our view, once a referral is made, the full screening and acceptance process is pending. 13 Regardless, even if we were to consider the initial screening hearing separately, the People note that the decision to screen a defendant is also discretionary and that, in at least one case, Judge Davis has declined to screen a defendant upon determining that they would not be a good fit for BHC. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Cookgreen2 sentences2014It is well settled that the jury is the exclusive arbiter of questions of fact and credibility of witnesses. (§ 1127; People v. Cook (1983) 33 Cal.3d 400, 408 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 770 .) While it is permissible for a trial court to comment on the evidence (People v. Brock (1967) 66 Cal.2d 645, 650 , overruled on another point in People v. Cook, supra, at p. 413, fn. 13 ; People v. Cook, supra, at p. 407 ), it is improper for a court to express to the jury its opinion as to the defendant’s guilt as such an expression of opinion may invade the 2014It is well settled that the jury is the exclusive arbiter of questions of fact and credibility of witnesses. (§ 1127; People v. Cook (1983) 33 Cal.3d 400, 408 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 770 .) While it is permissible for a trial court to comment on the evidence (People v. Brock (1967) 66 Cal.2d 645, 650 , overruled on another point in People v. Cook, supra, at p. 413, fn. 13 ; People v. Cook, supra, at p. 407 ), it is improper for a court to express to the jury its opinion as to the defendant’s guilt as such an expression of opinion may invade the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schiff v. Prados
green
2 sentences2016(Schiff v. Prados, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 701 .) Duty to Disclose the Existence of a Diagnostic Screening Test Mathews claimed Benjamin had a duty to disclose to her father the existence of a screening test procedure to determine "the drug's toxicity" before administering the 5-FU treatment. 2016(Schiff v. Prados, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 701 .) Duty to Disclose the Existence of a Diagnostic Screening Test Mathews claimed Benjamin had a duty to disclose to her father the existence of a screening test procedure to determine "the drug's toxicity" before administering the 5-FU treatment. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Diaz
red
1 sentence2015Regarding investigatory testing, section 23612, subdivision (h) states that a preliminary alcohol screening test based on a breath sample that is used to establish reasonable cause that the person was driving under the influence "is a field sobriety test and may be used by an officer as a further investigative tool." Section 23612, subdivision (i) sets forth the advisements the officer must provide concerning the preliminary alcohol screening test, including that the officer is requesting the screening to assist in determining if the person is under the influence; the person has the right to r | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Humphreys
green
1 sentence2015Regarding investigatory testing, section 23612, subdivision (h) states that a preliminary alcohol screening test based on a breath sample that is used to establish reasonable cause that the person was driving under the influence "is a field sobriety test and may be used by an officer as a further investigative tool." Section 23612, subdivision (i) sets forth the advisements the officer must provide concerning the preliminary alcohol screening test, including that the officer is requesting the screening to assist in determining if the person is under the influence; the person has the right to r | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2015Regarding investigatory testing, section 23612, subdivision (h) states that a preliminary alcohol screening test based on a breath sample that is used to establish reasonable cause that the person was driving under the influence "is a field sobriety test and may be used by an officer as a further investigative tool." Section 23612, subdivision (i) sets forth the advisements the officer must provide concerning the preliminary alcohol screening test, including that the officer is requesting the screening to assist in determining if the person is under the influence; the person has the right to r | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2014It is well settled that the jury is the exclusive arbiter of questions of fact and credibility of witnesses. (§ 1127; People v. Cook (1983) 33 Cal.3d 400, 408 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 770 .) While it is permissible for a trial court to comment on the evidence (People v. Brock (1967) 66 Cal.2d 645, 650 , overruled on another point in People v. Cook, supra, at p. 413, fn. 13 ; People v. Cook, supra, at p. 407 ), it is improper for a court to express to the jury its opinion as to the defendant’s guilt as such an expression of opinion may invade the | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Brock
green
1 sentence2014It is well settled that the jury is the exclusive arbiter of questions of fact and credibility of witnesses. (§ 1127; People v. Cook (1983) 33 Cal.3d 400, 408 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 770 .) While it is permissible for a trial court to comment on the evidence (People v. Brock (1967) 66 Cal.2d 645, 650 , overruled on another point in People v. Cook, supra, at p. 413, fn. 13 ; People v. Cook, supra, at p. 407 ), it is improper for a court to express to the jury its opinion as to the defendant’s guilt as such an expression of opinion may invade the | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.