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.
49 California opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2016 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. Rollored2 sentences1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. 1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. | 5 | 7 |
People v. Ristgreen2 sentences1985(See People v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115, 129-130 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 654 P.2d 1243 ]; People v. Spearman (1979) 25 Cal.3d 107, 119 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 883 , 599 P.2d 74 ]; People v. Fries (1979) 24 Cal.3d 222, 233-234 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 594 P.2d 19 ]; and People v. Rist (1976) 16 Cal.3d 211, 222-223 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 545 P.2d 833 ].) 3 In determining if Beagle error is prejudicial in those circumstances where the defendant has refused to testify, the critical inquiry on appeal is whether the court can glean from the record a “basis for concluding that appellant’s testimony would not h 1985(See People v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115, 129-130 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 654 P.2d 1243 ]; People v. Spearman (1979) 25 Cal.3d 107, 119 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 883 , 599 P.2d 74 ]; People v. Fries (1979) 24 Cal.3d 222, 233-234 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 594 P.2d 19 ]; and People v. Rist (1976) 16 Cal.3d 211, 222-223 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 545 P.2d 833 ].) 3 In determining if Beagle error is prejudicial in those circumstances where the defendant has refused to testify, the critical inquiry on appeal is whether the court can glean from the record a “basis for concluding that appellant’s testimony would not h | 3 | 11 |
People v. Friesgreen2 sentences1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. 1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. | 3 | 10 |
People v. Spearmangreen2 sentences1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. 1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. | 3 | 5 |
People v. Beaglegreen2 sentences2016Code, § 780.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible 16 to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.”13 (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) In “exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 654 .) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integ 2016Code, § 780.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible 16 to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.”13 (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) In “exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 654 .) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integ | 2 | 21 |
People v. Barrickred2 sentences1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. 1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences1985(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Consistent therewith, the cases dealing with improper admission of prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes unanimously hold that the so-called Beagle error is not prejudicial per se, but rather subject to the harmless error rule set out in Watson ; and that the judgment of conviction will be reversed on that ground only if in light of the record as a whole, a more favorable verdict to the defendant would have been reached. 1985(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) Consistent therewith, the cases dealing with improper admission of prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes unanimously hold that the so-called Beagle error is not prejudicial per se, but rather subject to the harmless error rule set out in Watson ; and that the judgment of conviction will be reversed on that ground only if in light of the record as a whole, a more favorable verdict to the defendant would have been reached. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Bailesgreen2 sentences2016It must be balanced against the other three considerations of Beagle.” (People v. Bailes (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 265, 279 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 792 ]; see also People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 216 ] (Mendoza) [the Beagle factors “need not be rigidly followed”]; People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 644 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 891 ] (Muldrow) [same].) Defendant’s argument that we must not apply the Collins rule here is grounded in part on his theory that the failure to consider the impact on a defendant’s decision to testify is reversible per se. 2016It must be balanced against the other three considerations of Beagle.” (People v. Bailes (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 265, 279 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 792 ]; see also People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 216 ] (Mendoza) [the Beagle factors “need not be rigidly followed”]; People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 644 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 891 ] (Muldrow) [same].) Defendant’s argument that we must not apply the Collins rule here is grounded in part on his theory that the failure to consider the impact on a defendant’s decision to testify is reversible per se. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Muldrowgreen2 sentences2016It must be balanced against the other three considerations of Beagle.” (People v. Bailes (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 265, 279 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 792 ]; see also People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 216 ] (Mendoza) [the Beagle factors “need not be rigidly followed”]; People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 644 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 891 ] (Muldrow) [same].) Defendant’s argument that we must not apply the Collins rule here is grounded in part on his theory that the failure to consider the impact on a defendant’s decision to testify is reversible per se. 2016It must be balanced against the other three considerations of Beagle.” (People v. Bailes (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 265, 279 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 792 ]; see also People v. Mendoza (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 918, 925 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 216 ] (Mendoza) [the Beagle factors “need not be rigidly followed”]; People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 644 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 891 ] (Muldrow) [same].) Defendant’s argument that we must not apply the Collins rule here is grounded in part on his theory that the failure to consider the impact on a defendant’s decision to testify is reversible per se. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Holtgreen2 sentences1989Although the court did not engage in a formal on-the-record evaluation of the factors affecting the weighing process, and Green does not so require, there can be no doubt that its conclusion was the result of a weighing process. ( People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 453 [ 208 Cal. Rptr. 547 , 690 P.2d 1207 ].) Here, the trial court furnished us with a record necessary for meaningful review of appellant's claim of abuse of discretion and to ensure that the ruling on the motion was the product of a mature and careful reflection on its part which, after all, is the reason for requiring an affirm 1989Although the court did not engage in a formal on-the-record evaluation of the factors affecting the weighing process, and Green does not so require, there can be no doubt that its conclusion was the result of a weighing process. ( People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 453 [ 208 Cal. Rptr. 547 , 690 P.2d 1207 ].) Here, the trial court furnished us with a record necessary for meaningful review of appellant's claim of abuse of discretion and to ensure that the ruling on the motion was the product of a mature and careful reflection on its part which, after all, is the reason for requiring an affirm | 2 | 2 |
People v. Greengreen2 sentences1989Although the court did not engage in a formal on-the-record evaluation of the factors affecting the weighing process, and Green does not so require, there can be no doubt that its conclusion was the result of a weighing process. ( People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 453 [ 208 Cal. Rptr. 547 , 690 P.2d 1207 ].) Here, the trial court furnished us with a record necessary for meaningful review of appellant's claim of abuse of discretion and to ensure that the ruling on the motion was the product of a mature and careful reflection on its part which, after all, is the reason for requiring an affirm 1989Although the court did not engage in a formal on-the-record evaluation of the factors affecting the weighing process, and Green does not so require, there can be no doubt that its conclusion was the result of a weighing process. ( People v. Holt (1984) 37 Cal.3d 436, 453 [ 208 Cal. Rptr. 547 , 690 P.2d 1207 ].) Here, the trial court furnished us with a record necessary for meaningful review of appellant's claim of abuse of discretion and to ensure that the ruling on the motion was the product of a mature and careful reflection on its part which, after all, is the reason for requiring an affirm | 2 | 2 |
People v. Castrogreen2 sentences2016Code, § 780.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible 16 to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.”13 (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) In “exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 654 .) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integ 2016Code, § 780.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible 16 to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.”13 (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) In “exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 654 .) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integ | 1 | 8 |
People v. Mendozagreen2 sentences2016Code, § 780.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible 16 to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.”13 (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) In “exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 654 .) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integ 2016Code, § 780.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible 16 to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.”13 (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) In “exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 654 .) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integ | 1 | 3 |
People v. Bettsgreen2 sentences1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. 1985(People v. Barrick, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 130 ; People v. Spearman, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 118 ; People v. Fries, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 234 ; see also People v. Rollo (1977) 20 Cal.3d 109 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 177 , 569 P.2d 771 ]; People v. Betts (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 225, 231 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 768 ].) The very same principle obtains where, as here, the Beagle error has resulted in a refusal of the defendant to testify. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Fishergreen2 sentences1985There are those exceptional cases even where the defendant does not testify where Beagle error will be harmless.” (People v. Logan (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 575, 578 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 543 ] [defendant confessed to crime]; see also People v. Fisher, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d 826 [alibi defense presented]; People v. McFarland (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 211 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 429 ] [defendant offered no evidence at trial; diminished capacity argued during closing argument]; People v. Anjell (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 189 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [alibi defense presented (1st Dist., 4th Div., per Rattigan, J., Caldecott, P 1985There are those exceptional cases even where the defendant does not testify where Beagle error will be harmless.” (People v. Logan (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 575, 578 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 543 ] [defendant confessed to crime]; see also People v. Fisher, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d 826 [alibi defense presented]; People v. McFarland (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 211 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 429 ] [defendant offered no evidence at trial; diminished capacity argued during closing argument]; People v. Anjell (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 189 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [alibi defense presented (1st Dist., 4th Div., per Rattigan, J., Caldecott, P | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lassellgreen2 sentences1983(People v. Spearman (1979) 25 Cal.3d 107, 116 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 883 , 599 P.2d 74 ]; People v. Lassell (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 720, 727 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 678 ].) The trial court therefore erred in denying defendant’s Beagle motion. 1983(People v. Spearman (1979) 25 Cal.3d 107, 116 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 883 , 599 P.2d 74 ]; People v. Lassell (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 720, 727 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 678 ].) The trial court therefore erred in denying defendant’s Beagle motion. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Woodardgreen2 sentences1984(People v. Woodard, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 341 .) We are unaware, however, of any case that has considered Beagle error which results in the failure of a nonparty witness to testify. 1984(People v. Woodard, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 341 .) We are unaware, however, of any case that has considered Beagle error which results in the failure of a nonparty witness to testify. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Bussgreen2 sentences1982There is no doubt that defendant's conviction of auto theft is similar to the charged offense of violating Vehicle Code section 10851 (theft and unlawful *128 driving or taking of a vehicle). (5) Indeed, "Vehicle Code section 10851 is a lesser included offense of Penal Code section 487, subdivision 3, grand theft, auto. [Citations.]" ( People v. Buss (1980) 102 Cal. App.3d 781, 784 [ 162 Cal. Rptr. 515 ].) In Buss , the Court of Appeal reversed a conviction of violating Vehicle Code section 10851 after the trial court denied defendant's Beagle motion to exclude a prior out-of-state felony conv 1982There is no doubt that defendant's conviction of auto theft is similar to the charged offense of violating Vehicle Code section 10851 (theft and unlawful *128 driving or taking of a vehicle). (5) Indeed, "Vehicle Code section 10851 is a lesser included offense of Penal Code section 487, subdivision 3, grand theft, auto. [Citations.]" ( People v. Buss (1980) 102 Cal. App.3d 781, 784 [ 162 Cal. Rptr. 515 ].) In Buss , the Court of Appeal reversed a conviction of violating Vehicle Code section 10851 after the trial court denied defendant's Beagle motion to exclude a prior out-of-state felony conv | 1 | 2 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2016Citing Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 310 [ 113 L.Ed.2d 302, 331 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 ] (Fulminante), defendant contends the purported error affects “ ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ” Thus, according to defendant, the purported error is structural and therefore not amenable to a harmless error analysis. 2016Citing Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 310 [ 113 L.Ed.2d 302, 331 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 ] (Fulminante), defendant contends the purported error affects “ ‘the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ” Thus, according to defendant, the purported error is structural and therefore not amenable to a harmless error analysis. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wheelerred2 sentences2016(People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 295 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 841 P.2d 938 ].) After Proposition 8, our high court has continued to require consideration of the four Beagle factors. 2016(People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 295 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418 , 841 P.2d 938 ].) After Proposition 8, our high court has continued to require consideration of the four Beagle factors. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
Luce v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016At the time Luce was decided, former rule 609(a) provided: “ ‘General Rule.—For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the *373 crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless 2016At the time Luce was decided, former rule 609(a) provided: “ ‘General Rule.—For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the *373 crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Montielgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Dillinghamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Flanagangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kyllingstadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Logangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Newtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Allengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Fullergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Reillygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Moshergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morris W. Gordon v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Stevensongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Benjamingreen | 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. Anjell
green
2 sentences1985There are those exceptional cases even where the defendant does not testify where Beagle error will be harmless.” (People v. Logan (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 575, 578 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 543 ] [defendant confessed to crime]; see also People v. Fisher, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d 826 [alibi defense presented]; People v. McFarland (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 211 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 429 ] [defendant offered no evidence at trial; diminished capacity argued during closing argument]; People v. Anjell (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 189 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [alibi defense presented (1st Dist., 4th Div., per Rattigan, J., Caldecott, P 1985There are those exceptional cases even where the defendant does not testify where Beagle error will be harmless.” (People v. Logan (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 575, 578 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 543 ] [defendant confessed to crime]; see also People v. Fisher, supra, 153 Cal.App.3d 826 [alibi defense presented]; People v. McFarland (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 211 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 429 ] [defendant offered no evidence at trial; diminished capacity argued during closing argument]; People v. Anjell (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 189 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 669 ] [alibi defense presented (1st Dist., 4th Div., per Rattigan, J., Caldecott, P | 4 | 1980–1985 |
People v. Collins
green
2 sentences1987Rather than speculating on the matter, however, in all such cases the court should reverse the judgment and remand the cause to allow the trial court not only to exercise its discretion but also to determine prejudice in the first instance.” ( 42 Cal.3d at p. 393 .) We interpret this language to say that in such event, the trial court shall determine how, in the light of prejudice, if any, to Fulcher, (1) it would have exercised its discretion on the Beagle motion, (2) that if it would have exercised its discretion favorably to Fulcher, the judgment stands reversed with the cause to be retried 1987Rather than speculating on the matter, however, in all such cases the court should reverse the judgment and remand the cause to allow the trial court not only to exercise its discretion but also to determine prejudice in the first instance." ( 42 Cal.3d at p. 393 .) We interpret this language to say that in such event, the trial court shall determine how, in the light of prejudice, if any, to Fulcher, (1) it would have exercised its discretion on the Beagle motion, (2) that if it would have exercised its discretion favorably to Fulcher, the judgment stands reversed with the cause to be retried | 2 | 1986–1987 |
People v. Burdine
green
2 sentences1983In People v. Burdine (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 442 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 375 ], the court addressed a situation where “there is no indication of why defendant decided not to testify.” (P. 450.) Holding the erroneous denial of a Beagle motion to be harmless error, the court in Burdine reviewed Beagle, People v. Rist (1976) 16 Cal.3d 211 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 545 P.2d 833 ], and People v. Fries (1979) 24 Cal.3d 222 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 594 P.2d 19 ], and concluded that “unless the record contains some indication that an adverse ruling on a Beagle and Rist motion has adversely affected a defendant’s decisi 1983In People v. Burdine (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 442 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 375 ], the court addressed a situation where “there is no indication of why defendant decided not to testify.” (P. 450.) Holding the erroneous denial of a Beagle motion to be harmless error, the court in Burdine reviewed Beagle, People v. Rist (1976) 16 Cal.3d 211 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 457 , 545 P.2d 833 ], and People v. Fries (1979) 24 Cal.3d 222 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 194 , 594 P.2d 19 ], and concluded that “unless the record contains some indication that an adverse ruling on a Beagle and Rist motion has adversely affected a defendant’s decisi | 2 | 1982–1983 |
People v. Moultrie
green
2 sentences1982The trial court denied defendant’s Beagle motion to disallow evidence of his prior attempted robbery conviction, but the trial court only allowed the prosecutor to ask the defendant, if he testified: “Have you ever been convicted of a felony involving theft?” The Court of Appeal sustained this procedure as an acceptable method of introducing the prior conviction without prejudicing defendant, and as striking a fair and reasonable balance between the effect of a defendant not testifying out of fear of being prejudiced because of impeachment by a prior conviction and clothing him with “a false a 1982The trial court denied defendant's Beagle motion to disallow evidence of his prior attempted robbery conviction, but the trial court only allowed the prosecutor to ask the defendant, if he testified: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony involving theft?" The Court of Appeal sustained this *127 procedure as an acceptable method of introducing the prior conviction without prejudicing defendant, and as striking a fair and reasonable balance between the effect of a defendant not testifying out of fear of being prejudiced because of impeachment by a prior conviction and clothing him with "a fa | 2 | 1980–1982 |
People v. Hayden
green
2 sentences1976To the extent that they conflict with the views expressed in this opinion we disapprove People v. Hayden, supra, 30 Cal.App.3d 446 , People v. Delgado, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 242 and their progeny. ‘If defendant’s counsel intended to make an offer of proof of his client’s expected testimony, the court’s summary disposition of the Beagle motion precluded such an offer. 1976However, such an offer, although doubtless helpful to the court, is not a sine qua non to the court’s duty to evaluate probative value against prejudicial effect and where as in the instant case the other Beagle factors dictate the exclusion of a prior conviction or convictions because their prejudicial effect manifestly overbalances their probative value it is an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to exclude. [Fns. omitted.]” (Italics added.) (16 Cal.3d at pp. 219, 220, 222.) The court also expressly disapproved People v. Hayden, 30 Cal.App.3d 446 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 348 ], wherein the trial | 2 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Delgado
green
2 sentences1976To the extent that they conflict with the views expressed in this opinion we disapprove People v. Hayden, supra, 30 Cal.App.3d 446 , People v. Delgado, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d 242 and their progeny. ‘If defendant’s counsel intended to make an offer of proof of his client’s expected testimony, the court’s summary disposition of the Beagle motion precluded such an offer. 1976However, such an offer, although doubtless helpful to the court, is not a sine qua non to the court’s duty to evaluate probative value against prejudicial effect and where as in the instant case the other Beagle factors dictate the exclusion of a prior conviction or convictions because their prejudicial effect manifestly overbalances their probative value it is an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to exclude. [Fns. omitted.]” (Italics added.) (16 Cal.3d at pp. 219, 220, 222.) The court also expressly disapproved People v. Hayden, 30 Cal.App.3d 446 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 348 ], wherein the trial | 2 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. Clair green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Harris
green
2 sentences2016Code, § 780.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible 16 to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.”13 (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) In “exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 654 .) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integ 2016Code, § 780.) “Past criminal conduct involving moral turpitude that has some logical bearing on the veracity of a witness in a criminal proceeding is admissible 16 to impeach, subject to the court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352.”13 (People v. Harris (2005) 37 Cal.4th 310, 337 .) In “exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 654 .) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction reflects on honesty and integ | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Carpenter
green
2 sentences2016(See People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1056 ; People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 645 [burglary].) Trial courts nevertheless “retain their discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to bar impeachment with such convictions when their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. [Citations.] . . . [I]n exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (Clair, at p. 654.) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction ref 2016(See People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1056 ; People v. Muldrow (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 636, 645 [burglary].) Trial courts nevertheless “retain their discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to bar impeachment with such convictions when their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect. [Citations.] . . . [I]n exercising their discretion, trial courts should continue to be guided—but not bound—by the factors set forth in People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , and its progeny.” (Clair, at p. 654.) The Beagle factors are “(1) whether the prior conviction ref | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Hinton
green
2 sentences2016The discretion is as broad as necessary to deal with the great variety of factual situations in which the issue arises, and in most instances the appellate courts will uphold its exercise whether the conviction is admitted or excluded.’” (People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 887 .) Here, the trial court cited to Beagle’s “four sets of factors for the court to consider” and concluded that appellant’s 2001 conviction reflected on his honesty or integrity, was “somewhat remote” in time but was “not really that old” given appellant was incarcerated part of the time, was not similar to the charg 2016The discretion is as broad as necessary to deal with the great variety of factual situations in which the issue arises, and in most instances the appellate courts will uphold its exercise whether the conviction is admitted or excluded.’” (People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 887 .) Here, the trial court cited to Beagle’s “four sets of factors for the court to consider” and concluded that appellant’s 2001 conviction reflected on his honesty or integrity, was “somewhat remote” in time but was “not really that old” given appellant was incarcerated part of the time, was not similar to the charg | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Dyer green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Holley v. J & S SWEEPING CO. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Boyd green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| People v. Castro green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| People v. McFarland green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Wheeler green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Collins v. United States green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| People v. Bassett green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| People v. Antick green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| People v. Wingo green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. Stewart green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. Jackson green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.