5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burton v. Sannergreen2 sentences2016(Ibid.; see 27 Burton v. Sanner (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 12, 14 [expert “usurped the jury’s role” where “[t]he test of reasonableness” on an issue of self defense was “an objective one for the jury” and “it is just as competent as the expert to evaluate the evidence and draw conclusions”].) Similarly, here, it was important for a jury to apply a reasonableness standard using its common knowledge. 2016(Ibid.; see 27 Burton v. Sanner (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 12, 14 [expert “usurped the jury’s role” where “[t]he test of reasonableness” on an issue of self defense was “an objective one for the jury” and “it is just as competent as the expert to evaluate the evidence and draw conclusions”].) Similarly, here, it was important for a jury to apply a reasonableness standard using its common knowledge. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pensingergreen1 sentence2016Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for assault because “[t]he prosecution’s own evidence raised a reasonable doubt on the issue of self- defense.” Defendant acknowledges the substantial evidence rule governs his argument. 12 Under that rule, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307 , 31 | 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. Clark
green
1 sentence2023Similarly, at the section 1172.6 hearing, Gonzalez did not offer any evidence and argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a major participant or acted with reckless indifference pursuant to the factors set forth in People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2016Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for assault because “[t]he prosecution’s own evidence raised a reasonable doubt on the issue of self- defense.” Defendant acknowledges the substantial evidence rule governs his argument. 12 Under that rule, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307 , 31 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Reilly
green
1 sentence2016Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for assault because “[t]he prosecution’s own evidence raised a reasonable doubt on the issue of self- defense.” Defendant acknowledges the substantial evidence rule governs his argument. 12 Under that rule, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307 , 31 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Adrian
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 .) “ ‘If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.’ ” (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514 .) It is true that, at trial, due process places “the burden of persuasion . . . on the People to show the nonexistence” of a defense that negates an element of crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Saavedra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 561, 570 .) “Self- defense neg | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Ralph International Thomas
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 .) “ ‘If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.’ ” (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514 .) It is true that, at trial, due process places “the burden of persuasion . . . on the People to show the nonexistence” of a defense that negates an element of crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Saavedra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 561, 570 .) “Self- defense neg | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Saavedra
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 .) “ ‘If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.’ ” (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514 .) It is true that, at trial, due process places “the burden of persuasion . . . on the People to show the nonexistence” of a defense that negates an element of crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Saavedra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 561, 570 .) “Self- defense neg | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Ochoa
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 .) “ ‘If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.’ ” (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 514 .) It is true that, at trial, due process places “the burden of persuasion . . . on the People to show the nonexistence” of a defense that negates an element of crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Saavedra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 561, 570 .) “Self- defense neg | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
1 sentence2016Defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for assault because “[t]he prosecution’s own evidence raised a reasonable doubt on the issue of self- defense.” Defendant acknowledges the substantial evidence rule governs his argument. 12 Under that rule, “ ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307 , 31 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re Jones
green
1 sentence2013To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Polk must demonstrate that “(1) counsel’s representation was deficient in falling below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient representation subjected the petitioner to prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result would have been more favorable to the petitioner.” (In re Jones (1996) 13 Cal.4th 552, 561 .) 8 A review of the record demonstrates that Polk’s counsel did raise the issue of self- defense in closing: “Anderson got upset | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.