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 2005–2016 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. PESCADORgreen2 sentences2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. 2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. | 3 | 4 |
People v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. 2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Pricegreen2 sentences2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. 2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Relifordgreen2 sentences2016(See e.g., People v. Johnson (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 410, 417 ; People v. Brown (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1328-1329 ; People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 529 .) 20 In People v. Reliford (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1007, 1016 , the California Supreme Court ruled CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, was constitutionally valid because it was not “reasonably likely a jury could interpret the instructions to authorize conviction of the charged offenses based on a lower standard of proof.” Appellate courts have relied on the analysis in Relifor 2013(Reyes, at p. 250.) In rejecting that claim, the Reyes court explained that the California Supreme Court held in Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at page 915 , that Evidence Code section 1108 (discussed, ante) conforms with the requirements of due process and that the high court also held in People v. Reliford, supra, 29 Cal.4th 1007 , that CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an "instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, is proper." (Reyes, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 .) The Reyes court also explained that "[t]he analysis in Falsetta has been used to uphold the constitutionality of | 2 | 4 |
People v. Schnabelgreen2 sentences2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. 2008CALCRIM No. 1191 ... in its explanation of the law on permissive inferences and the burden of proof.” (People v. Schnabel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 83, 87 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 922 ], fn. omitted.) Court of Appeal cases have followed Falsetta and Reliford and upheld the constitutionality of Evidence Code section 1109 (People v. Jennings (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1310-1313 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 727 ]; People v. Price (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 224, 240 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 229 ]), which authorizes the use of propensity evidence in domestic violence cases, and the corresponding CALJIC instruction, CALJIC No. 2.50. | 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. Reyes
green
2 sentences2013(Reyes, at p. 250.) In rejecting that claim, the Reyes court explained that the California Supreme Court held in Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at page 915 , that Evidence Code section 1108 (discussed, ante) conforms with the requirements of due process and that the high court also held in People v. Reliford, supra, 29 Cal.4th 1007 , that CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an "instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, is proper." (Reyes, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 .) The Reyes court also explained that "[t]he analysis in Falsetta has been used to uphold the constitutionality of 2013(Reyes, at p. 250.) In rejecting that claim, the Reyes court explained that the California Supreme Court held in Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at page 915 , that Evidence Code section 1108 (discussed, ante) conforms with the requirements of due process and that the high court also held in People v. Reliford, supra, 29 Cal.4th 1007 , that CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an "instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, is proper." (Reyes, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 .) The Reyes court also explained that "[t]he analysis in Falsetta has been used to uphold the constitutionality of | 2 | 2013–2016 |
People v. Falsetta
green
2 sentences2013(Reyes, at p. 250.) In rejecting that claim, the Reyes court explained that the California Supreme Court held in Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at page 915 , that Evidence Code section 1108 (discussed, ante) conforms with the requirements of due process and that the high court also held in People v. Reliford, supra, 29 Cal.4th 1007 , that CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an "instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, is proper." (Reyes, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 .) The Reyes court also explained that "[t]he analysis in Falsetta has been used to uphold the constitutionality of 2013(Reyes, at p. 250.) In rejecting that claim, the Reyes court explained that the California Supreme Court held in Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at page 915 , that Evidence Code section 1108 (discussed, ante) conforms with the requirements of due process and that the high court also held in People v. Reliford, supra, 29 Cal.4th 1007 , that CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an "instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, is proper." (Reyes, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 251 .) The Reyes court also explained that "[t]he analysis in Falsetta has been used to uphold the constitutionality of | 2 | 2005–2013 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2016(See e.g., People v. Johnson (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 410, 417 ; People v. Brown (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1328-1329 ; People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 529 .) 20 In People v. Reliford (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1007, 1016 , the California Supreme Court ruled CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, was constitutionally valid because it was not “reasonably likely a jury could interpret the instructions to authorize conviction of the charged offenses based on a lower standard of proof.” Appellate courts have relied on the analysis in Relifor | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence2016(See e.g., People v. Johnson (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 410, 417 ; People v. Brown (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1328-1329 ; People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 529 .) 20 In People v. Reliford (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1007, 1016 , the California Supreme Court ruled CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, was constitutionally valid because it was not “reasonably likely a jury could interpret the instructions to authorize conviction of the charged offenses based on a lower standard of proof.” Appellate courts have relied on the analysis in Relifor | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2016(See e.g., People v. Johnson (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 410, 417 ; People v. Brown (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1328-1329 ; People v. Johnson (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 520, 529 .) 20 In People v. Reliford (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1007, 1016 , the California Supreme Court ruled CALJIC No. 2.50.01, an instruction explaining the application of Evidence Code section 1108, was constitutionally valid because it was not “reasonably likely a jury could interpret the instructions to authorize conviction of the charged offenses based on a lower standard of proof.” Appellate courts have relied on the analysis in Relifor | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.