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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 1 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. Californiayellow2 sentences2025(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 [“the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”].) Even assuming the statements minor challenges in Detective Ditty’s report were outside the bounds of his expertise, lacked foundation, and were irrelevant, they were inconsequential in the context of the entirety of the evidence. 2013(Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) III. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Phillip F.green2 sentences2002We hold the error, albeit a due process violation under In re Phillip F. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 250, 258-259 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 693 ], is subject to the Chapman prejudice standard of harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2 Having reviewed the record under this standard, we conclude the error was harmless and we will affirm. 2002We hold the error, albeit a due process violation under In re Phillip F. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 250, 258-259 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 693 ], is subject to the Chapman prejudice standard of harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2 Having reviewed the record under this standard, we conclude the error was harmless and we will affirm. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence2025The juvenile court took it under submission and ultimately admitted the report, finding most “if not wholly” the contents of the report were presented by other means of evidence, including “video evidence that did overlap the summation of Detective Ditty’s narrative in that investigative report.” 4 Minor does not challenge any expert witness testimony under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 . 23 We conclude any error on this last issue harmless even under the stricter Chapman prejudice analysis. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Richardson
red
1 sentence2014Code, § 354 [erroneous exclusion of evidence does not warrant reversal unless it caused a miscarriage of justice ]; People v. Richardson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1001 .) Defendant invokes the Chapman prejudice standard for federal constitutional error. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.