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 1996–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2013“The determination of whether Carlos error is harmless ‘depends on application of the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [].’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless when “the evidence of defendant’s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 310 (Haley).) The evidence of intent to kill in this case is overwhelming. 2005(Chapman, supra, at p. 24 [ 87 S.Ct. at p. 828 ].)” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 689 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 , 941 P.2d 752 ].) We have held that “ ‘error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when “the evidence of defendant’s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.” ’ ” (People v. Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1, 42 .) In the present case, the evidence was overwhelming that defendant possessed the intent to kill when he murde | 3 | 4 |
People v. Osbandgreen2 sentences2004The determination of whether Carlos error is harmless "depends on application of the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ]." ( People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 681 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26 , 919 P.2d 640 ( Osband ).) In other words, "error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless when `the evidence of defendant's intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.'" ( Ibid. ) Certainly, if 2004The determination of whether Carlos error is harmless "depends on application of the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ]." ( People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 681 , 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26 , 919 P.2d 640 ( Osband ).) In other words, "error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless when `the evidence of defendant's intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.'" ( Ibid. ) Certainly, if | 1 | 2 |
People v. Haleygreen1 sentence2013“The determination of whether Carlos error is harmless ‘depends on application of the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [].’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless when “the evidence of defendant’s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 310 (Haley).) The evidence of intent to kill in this case is overwhelming. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2005(Chapman, supra, at p. 24 [ 87 S.Ct. at p. 828 ].)” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 689 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 , 941 P.2d 752 ].) We have held that “ ‘error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when “the evidence of defendant’s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.” ’ ” (People v. Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1, 42 .) In the present case, the evidence was overwhelming that defendant possessed the intent to kill when he murde 2005(Chapman, supra, at p. 24 [ 87 S.Ct. at p. 828 ].)” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 689 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 , 941 P.2d 752 ].) We have held that “ ‘error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when “the evidence of defendant’s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.” ’ ” (People v. Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1, 42 .) In the present case, the evidence was overwhelming that defendant possessed the intent to kill when he murde | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1997(People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 45-46 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593 , 859 P.2d 673 ].) This court recently held that “error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when ‘the evidence of defendant’s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.’ ” (People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 681, quoting People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 45-46.) Although the evidence of intent to kill here is sufficient to support a jury’s finding of inten 1997(People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 45-46 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593 , 859 P.2d 673 ].) This court recently held that “error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when ‘the evidence of defendant’s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.’ ” (People v. Osband, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 681, quoting People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 45-46.) Although the evidence of intent to kill here is sufficient to support a jury’s finding of inten | 1 | 1 |
People v. Velasquezgreen2 sentences1996To “ ‘[i]ntend’ means ‘to have in mind as a purpose or goal . . . .’” (People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 423, fn. 2 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666 , 867 P.2d 777 ]; cf. People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425, 434 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 306 , 606 P.2d 341 ] (lead opn.), vacated and remanded sub nom. 1996To “ ‘[i]ntend’ means ‘to have in mind as a purpose or goal . . . .’” (People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 423, fn. 2 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666 , 867 P.2d 777 ]; cf. People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425, 434 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 306 , 606 P.2d 341 ] (lead opn.), vacated and remanded sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Balcomgreen2 sentences1996To “ ‘[i]ntend’ means ‘to have in mind as a purpose or goal . . . .’” (People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 423, fn. 2 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666 , 867 P.2d 777 ]; cf. People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425, 434 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 306 , 606 P.2d 341 ] (lead opn.), vacated and remanded sub nom. 1996To “ ‘[i]ntend’ means ‘to have in mind as a purpose or goal . . . .’” (People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414, 423, fn. 2 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666 , 867 P.2d 777 ]; cf. People v. Velasquez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 425, 434 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 306 , 606 P.2d 341 ] (lead opn.), vacated and remanded sub nom. | 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. Marshall
green
2 sentences2013(Flood, at p. 504.) “„Under that test, an error is harmless only when, beyond a reasonable doubt, it did not contribute to the verdict.‟” (People v. Jones, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1119 .) Our Supreme Court has held that “„error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when “the evidence of defendant‟s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.”‟” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 42 .) In determining whether instructional error was ha 2005(Chapman, supra, at p. 24 [ 87 S.Ct. at p. 828 ].)” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 689 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 , 941 P.2d 752 ].) We have held that “ ‘error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when “the evidence of defendant’s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.” ’ ” (People v. Marshall, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1, 42 .) In the present case, the evidence was overwhelming that defendant possessed the intent to kill when he murde | 2 | 2005–2013 |
People v. Cain
green
1 sentence2013(Flood, at p. 504.) “„Under that test, an error is harmless only when, beyond a reasonable doubt, it did not contribute to the verdict.‟” (People v. Jones, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1119 .) Our Supreme Court has held that “„error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when “the evidence of defendant‟s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.”‟” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 42 .) In determining whether instructional error was ha | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Jones
green
1 sentence2013(Flood, at p. 504.) “„Under that test, an error is harmless only when, beyond a reasonable doubt, it did not contribute to the verdict.‟” (People v. Jones, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1119 .) Our Supreme Court has held that “„error in failing to instruct that a special circumstance contains a requirement of the intent to kill is harmless [beyond a reasonable doubt] when “the evidence of defendant‟s intent to kill . . . was overwhelming, and the jury could have had no reasonable doubt on that matter.”‟” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 42 .) In determining whether instructional error was ha | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2004(See, e.g., People v. Hernandez (1988) 47 Cal.3d 315, 349 , 253 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 763 P.2d 1289 [strangulation "is indicative of at least a deliberate intent to kill"].) But the evidence that defendant intended to kill Clement was not overwhelming. 2004(See, e.g., People v. Hernandez (1988) 47 Cal.3d 315, 349 , 253 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 763 P.2d 1289 [strangulation "is indicative of at least a deliberate intent to kill"].) But the evidence that defendant intended to kill Clement was not overwhelming. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.