6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montana v. Egelhoffgreen2 sentences2018Four justices in Egelhoff opined that a state evidentiary rule barring consideration of voluntary intoxication in the determination of criminal mens rea does not contravene any uniform state practice or longstanding tradition and therefore does not violate the federal due process clause. ( Egelhoff , at p. 51, 116 S.Ct. 2013 (plur. opn.).) Justice Ginsburg, casting a fifth vote to uphold the statute, characterized the state rule as "a redefinition of the mental-state element of the offense," not as "an evidentiary prescription," and opined that "[s]tates enjoy wide latitude in defining the ele 2018Four justices in Egelhoff opined that a state evidentiary rule barring consideration of voluntary intoxication in the determination of criminal mens rea does not contravene any uniform state practice or longstanding tradition and therefore does not violate the federal due process clause. ( Egelhoff , at p. 51, 116 S.Ct. 2013 (plur. opn.).) Justice Ginsburg, casting a fifth vote to uphold the statute, characterized the state rule as "a redefinition of the mental-state element of the offense," not as "an evidentiary prescription," and opined that "[s]tates enjoy wide latitude in defining the ele | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hallgreen2 sentences2003Although defendant is correct in the abstract that a state evidentiary rule may still be unconstitutional, "`[a]s a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's right to present a defense.'" ( People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305 , 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 793 , 949 P.2d 890 , quoting People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 718 P.2d 99 ; see also People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1122 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 , and cases cited.) Defendant fails to explain why the relatively routine practice of permitting an a 2003Although defendant is correct in the abstract that a state evidentiary rule may still be unconstitutional, "`[a]s a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's right to present a defense.'" ( People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305 , 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 793 , 949 P.2d 890 , quoting People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 718 P.2d 99 ; see also People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1122 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 , and cases cited.) Defendant fails to explain why the relatively routine practice of permitting an a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2003Although defendant is correct in the abstract that a state evidentiary rule may still be unconstitutional, "`[a]s a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's right to present a defense.'" ( People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305 , 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 793 , 949 P.2d 890 , quoting People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 718 P.2d 99 ; see also People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1122 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 , and cases cited.) Defendant fails to explain why the relatively routine practice of permitting an a 2003Although defendant is correct in the abstract that a state evidentiary rule may still be unconstitutional, "`[a]s a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's right to present a defense.'" ( People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305 , 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 793 , 949 P.2d 890 , quoting People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 718 P.2d 99 ; see also People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1122 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 , and cases cited.) Defendant fails to explain why the relatively routine practice of permitting an a | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fudgegreen2 sentences2003Although defendant is correct in the abstract that a state evidentiary rule may still be unconstitutional, "`[a]s a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's right to present a defense.'" ( People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305 , 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 793 , 949 P.2d 890 , quoting People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 718 P.2d 99 ; see also People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1122 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 , and cases cited.) Defendant fails to explain why the relatively routine practice of permitting an a 2003Although defendant is correct in the abstract that a state evidentiary rule may still be unconstitutional, "`[a]s a general matter, the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's right to present a defense.'" ( People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 305 , 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 793 , 949 P.2d 890 , quoting People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826, 834 , 226 Cal. Rptr. 112 , 718 P.2d 99 ; see also People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1122 , 31 Cal. Rptr.2d 321 , 875 P.2d 36 , and cases cited.) Defendant fails to explain why the relatively routine practice of permitting an a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2017(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 .) Generally speaking, of course, a violation of a state evidentiary rule is not a federal constitutional error. 2016Finally, we would find any error in the exclusion of Croswell’s statements harmless error under both the state evidentiary standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , and Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 , for the reasons discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph. | 3 | 2016–2017 |
People v. Watson
green
2 sentences2016Finally, we would find any error in the exclusion of Croswell’s statements harmless error under both the state evidentiary standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , and Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 , for the reasons discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph. 2016Finally, we would find any error in the exclusion of Croswell’s statements harmless error under both the state evidentiary standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , and Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 , for the reasons discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Partida
green
1 sentence2017(People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 91 .) Even though in some instances an admission of evidence in violation of section 352 may amount to a due process violation (see People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ), that is immaterial here because any such error was harmless even under the Chapman standard. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Benavides
green
1 sentence2017(People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 91 .) Even though in some instances an admission of evidence in violation of section 352 may amount to a due process violation (see People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 439 ), that is immaterial here because any such error was harmless even under the Chapman standard. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2002After issuing an alternative writ and staying enforcement of the superior court's disclosure order, the Court of Appeal ordered defendant and the City to brief these additional issues: (1) The scope of a defendant's right to pretrial discovery under Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ; (2) the constitutionality of the five-year exclusion as provided for in section 1045(b)(1); and (3) the appropriate test for determining the constitutional validity of a state evidentiary rule that affects a defendant's federal due process right to a fair trial. 2002After issuing an alternative writ and staying enforcement of the superior court's disclosure order, the Court of Appeal ordered defendant and the City to brief these additional issues: (1) The scope of a defendant's right to pretrial discovery under Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ; (2) the constitutionality of the five-year exclusion as provided for in section 1045(b)(1); and (3) the appropriate test for determining the constitutional validity of a state evidentiary rule that affects a defendant's federal due process right to a fair trial. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.
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.