Bruton-Aranda error (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

Bruton-Aranda error in California

5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1969–1994 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.

Followed or applied (9)

CaseFollowedCited
Chapman v. Californiared
scotus · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1987–1992
2 sentences

1992At no time during this process did defense counsel object to any of McCray's statements in whole or in part based on the Bruton-Aranda rule. (14)(See fn. 3.), (13b) Defendant has waived any objection on that ground. ( People v. Mitcham, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1044 .) [3] Even if the objection had been timely raised, the record amply demonstrates that the admission of McCray's statements was not prejudicial to defendant. ( Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 ].) The most telling sign of an absence of prejudice is that defendant *996 himself sought to rely on

1992At no time during this process did defense counsel object to any of McCray's statements in whole or in part based on the Bruton-Aranda rule. (14)(See fn. 3.), (13b) Defendant has waived any objection on that ground. ( People v. Mitcham, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1044 .) [3] Even if the objection had been timely raised, the record amply demonstrates that the admission of McCray's statements was not prejudicial to defendant. ( Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711 ].) The most telling sign of an absence of prejudice is that defendant *996 himself sought to rely on

12
In Re Hillgreen
cal · 1969 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1987
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

12
People v. Vasquez Diazgreen
calctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994(Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. at pp. 126-137 [20 L.Ed.2d at pp. 479-485]; People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1120-1121; People v. Vasquez Diaz (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1310, 1314-1315 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 599 ].) But the Bruton-Aranda rule does not apply here.

1994(Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. at pp. 126-137 [20 L.Ed.2d at pp. 479-485]; People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1120-1121; People v. Vasquez Diaz (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1310, 1314-1315 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 599 ].) But the Bruton-Aranda rule does not apply here.

11
People v. Bensongreen
cal · 1990 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992“Absent a timely and specific objection on the ground defendant now asserts on appeal, his contention is deemed waived.” (People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1044 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230 , 824 P.2d 1277 ] [finding waiver of Bruton-Aranda objection]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 786, fn. 7 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 827 , 802 P.2d 330 ].) Not only did defendant withhold his objection to the statements, defendant himself agreed to, indeed sought, their admission.

1992“Absent a timely and specific objection on the ground defendant now asserts on appeal, his contention is deemed waived.” (People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1044 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230 , 824 P.2d 1277 ] [finding waiver of Bruton-Aranda objection]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 786, fn. 7 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 827 , 802 P.2d 330 ].) Not only did defendant withhold his objection to the statements, defendant himself agreed to, indeed sought, their admission.

11
People v. Mitchamgreen
cal · 1992 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992“Absent a timely and specific objection on the ground defendant now asserts on appeal, his contention is deemed waived.” (People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1044 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230 , 824 P.2d 1277 ] [finding waiver of Bruton-Aranda objection]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 786, fn. 7 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 827 , 802 P.2d 330 ].) Not only did defendant withhold his objection to the statements, defendant himself agreed to, indeed sought, their admission.

1992“Absent a timely and specific objection on the ground defendant now asserts on appeal, his contention is deemed waived.” (People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1044 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 230 , 824 P.2d 1277 ] [finding waiver of Bruton-Aranda objection]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 786, fn. 7 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 827 , 802 P.2d 330 ].) Not only did defendant withhold his objection to the statements, defendant himself agreed to, indeed sought, their admission.

11
Harrington v. Californiared
scotus · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11
People v. Fulksgreen
calctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Indeed, as People v. Fulks (1980) 110 Cal. App.3d 609, 616-617 [ 168 Cal. Rptr. 203 ], correctly implies, what is material for Bruton-Aranda analysis is not how the statement under review should be classified in the abstract — as a confession, an admission, or even an exculpatory declaration — but rather whether on the facts of the individual case it operates to inculpate the other defendant.

1987Indeed, as People v. Fulks (1980) 110 Cal. App.3d 609, 616-617 [ 168 Cal. Rptr. 203 ], correctly implies, what is material for Bruton-Aranda analysis is not how the statement under review should be classified in the abstract — as a confession, an admission, or even an exculpatory declaration — but rather whether on the facts of the individual case it operates to inculpate the other defendant.

11
Schneble v. Floridagreen
scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11
Brown v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (15)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Anderson red
cal · 1987
2 sentences

1994In People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 ], the California Supreme Court explained the scope of the Bruton-Aranda rule: “[A]ll statements inculpating the declarant codefendant and the other defendant appear to fall within the rationale of the rule. . . . [W]hat is material for Bruton-Aranda analysis is not how the statement under review should be classified in the abstract — as a confession, an admission, or even an exculpatory declaration — but rather whether on the facts of the individual case it operates to inculpate the other defendant.“ (Id. at p. 11

1994In People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 742 P.2d 1306 ], the California Supreme Court explained the scope of the Bruton-Aranda rule: “[A]ll statements inculpating the declarant codefendant and the other defendant appear to fall within the rationale of the rule. . . . [W]hat is material for Bruton-Aranda analysis is not how the statement under review should be classified in the abstract — as a confession, an admission, or even an exculpatory declaration — but rather whether on the facts of the individual case it operates to inculpate the other defendant.“ (Id. at p. 11

11994–1994
In Re Lara green
cal · 1969
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11987–1987
In Re Whitehorn green
cal · 1969
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11987–1987
People v. Epps green
calctapp · 1973
2 sentences

1987Relying on language in People v. Jackson (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 556 [ 155 Cal. Rptr. 89 ], People v. Romo (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 976 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 684 ], and People v. Epps (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 146 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 733 ], the Attorney General next maintains it is not Bruton-Aranda error to admit extrajudicial statements that incriminate the defendant as well as the *1123 declarant codefendant when substantial independent evidence links the defendant to the crime.

1987Relying on language in People v. Jackson (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 556 [ 155 Cal. Rptr. 89 ], People v. Romo (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 976 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 684 ], and People v. Epps (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 146 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 733 ], the Attorney General next maintains it is not Bruton-Aranda error to admit extrajudicial statements that incriminate the defendant as well as the *1123 declarant codefendant when substantial independent evidence links the defendant to the crime.

11987–1987
People v. Braun green
calctapp · 1973
2 sentences

1987Thus, the Attorney General fails to demonstrate that the applicability of the rule should turn on whether the statement in question can be technically categorized as a confession. [1] (7), (1c) The Attorney General's final argument, which rests on People v. Braun (1973) 29 Cal. App.3d 949 [ 106 Cal. Rptr. 56 ], is that the Bruton-Aranda rule does not apply because Sheila's statements were admitted not for their truth to implicate her in the murders, but solely to impeach the experts' opinion of her mental state.

1987Thus, the Attorney General fails to demonstrate that the applicability of the rule should turn on whether the statement in question can be technically categorized as a confession. [1] (7), (1c) The Attorney General's final argument, which rests on People v. Braun (1973) 29 Cal. App.3d 949 [ 106 Cal. Rptr. 56 ], is that the Bruton-Aranda rule does not apply because Sheila's statements were admitted not for their truth to implicate her in the murders, but solely to impeach the experts' opinion of her mental state.

11987–1987
People v. Leach green
cal · 1975
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11987–1987
People v. Mardian green
calctapp · 1975
2 sentences

1987NOTES [1] To the extent People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 16 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 269 ], on which the Attorney General relies, supports the proposition that the Bruton-Aranda rule applies only when a confession is invalid, it is disapproved. [2] In support of his claim that the Bruton-Aranda rule does not apply on the facts of this case, the Attorney General also cites the plurality opinion in Parker v. Randolph, supra, 442 U.S. 62 .

1987NOTES [1] To the extent People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 16 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 269 ], on which the Attorney General relies, supports the proposition that the Bruton-Aranda rule applies only when a confession is invalid, it is disapproved. [2] In support of his claim that the Bruton-Aranda rule does not apply on the facts of this case, the Attorney General also cites the plurality opinion in Parker v. Randolph, supra, 442 U.S. 62 .

11987–1987
People v. Jackson green
calctapp · 1979
2 sentences

1987Relying on language in People v. Jackson (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 556 [ 155 Cal. Rptr. 89 ], People v. Romo (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 976 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 684 ], and People v. Epps (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 146 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 733 ], the Attorney General next maintains it is not Bruton-Aranda error to admit extrajudicial statements that incriminate the defendant as well as the *1123 declarant codefendant when substantial independent evidence links the defendant to the crime.

1987Relying on language in People v. Jackson (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 556 [ 155 Cal. Rptr. 89 ], People v. Romo (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 976 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 684 ], and People v. Epps (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 146 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 733 ], the Attorney General next maintains it is not Bruton-Aranda error to admit extrajudicial statements that incriminate the defendant as well as the *1123 declarant codefendant when substantial independent evidence links the defendant to the crime.

11987–1987
People v. Romo green
calctapp · 1975
2 sentences

1987Relying on language in People v. Jackson (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 556 [ 155 Cal. Rptr. 89 ], People v. Romo (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 976 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 684 ], and People v. Epps (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 146 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 733 ], the Attorney General next maintains it is not Bruton-Aranda error to admit extrajudicial statements that incriminate the defendant as well as the *1123 declarant codefendant when substantial independent evidence links the defendant to the crime.

1987Relying on language in People v. Jackson (1979) 92 Cal. App.3d 556 [ 155 Cal. Rptr. 89 ], People v. Romo (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 976 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 684 ], and People v. Epps (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 146 [ 109 Cal. Rptr. 733 ], the Attorney General next maintains it is not Bruton-Aranda error to admit extrajudicial statements that incriminate the defendant as well as the *1123 declarant codefendant when substantial independent evidence links the defendant to the crime.

11987–1987
People v. Floyd green
cal · 1970
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11987–1987
People v. Flores green
cal · 1968
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11987–1987
In Re Sears green
cal · 1969
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11987–1987
People v. Flores neutral
cal · 1968
2 sentences

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

1987Brown v. United States (1973) 411 U.S. 223, 231-232 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 208, 215 , 93 S.Ct. 1565 ], Schneble v. Florida (1972) 405 U.S. 427, 430 [ 31 L.Ed.2d 340, 346 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ]; People v. Floyd, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 721 , People v. Flores (1968) 68 Cal.2d 563 , 568, fn. 5 [ 68 Cal. Rptr. 161 , 440 P.2d 233 ]; see, e.g., Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 252-254 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 284, 286-288 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 ]; People v. Leach (1975) 15 Cal.3d 419 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 ].) But because it implicates a federal constitutional right, such error must be scrutinized under the h

11987–1987
Parker v. Randolph red
scotus · 1979
2 sentences

1987NOTES [1] To the extent People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 16 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 269 ], on which the Attorney General relies, supports the proposition that the Bruton-Aranda rule applies only when a confession is invalid, it is disapproved. [2] In support of his claim that the Bruton-Aranda rule does not apply on the facts of this case, the Attorney General also cites the plurality opinion in Parker v. Randolph, supra, 442 U.S. 62 .

1987NOTES [1] To the extent People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 16 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 269 ], on which the Attorney General relies, supports the proposition that the Bruton-Aranda rule applies only when a confession is invalid, it is disapproved. [2] In support of his claim that the Bruton-Aranda rule does not apply on the facts of this case, the Attorney General also cites the plurality opinion in Parker v. Randolph, supra, 442 U.S. 62 .

11987–1987
In Re Spencer green
cal · 1965
2 sentences

1973We find no substance in either of these contentions. (1) The rules relating to the conditions under which the testimony of a court-appointed psychiatrist is admissible at trial are clearly outlined in In re Spencer (1965) 63 Cal.2d 400 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 753 , 406 P.2d 33 ].

1973We find no substance in either of these contentions. (1) The rules relating to the conditions under which the testimony of a court-appointed psychiatrist is admissible at trial are clearly outlined in In re Spencer (1965) 63 Cal.2d 400 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 753 , 406 P.2d 33 ].

11973–1973

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check