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 2 courts 2008–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Edwardsred2 sentences2008(People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 793 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 , 171 P.3d 548 ]; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 833-836 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696 , 819 P.2d 436 ]; 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Punishment, § 472, pp. 631-632.) In the event the jurors at the penalty phase considered Mrs. Toovey’s brief guilt phase testimony concerning her husband, the jurors were entitled to consider that and all other circumstances of the crimes. *152 11. 2008(People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 793 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 , 171 P.3d 548 ]; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 833-836 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696 , 819 P.2d 436 ]; 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Punishment, § 472, pp. 631-632.) In the event the jurors at the penalty phase considered Mrs. Toovey’s brief guilt phase testimony concerning her husband, the jurors were entitled to consider that and all other circumstances of the crimes. *152 11. | 1 | 1 |
Mercer v. Perezgreen2 sentences2008(Me rcer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 118 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 436 P.2d 315 ].) Payne’s motion bore no resemblance to a motion for new trial, nor did he list any of the statutory grounds for new trial in his notice of motion. 2008(Me rcer v. Perez (1968) 68 Cal.2d 104, 118 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 315 , 436 P.2d 315 ].) Payne’s motion bore no resemblance to a motion for new trial, nor did he list any of the statutory grounds for new trial in his notice of motion. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kellygreen2 sentences2008(People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 793 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 , 171 P.3d 548 ]; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 833-836 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696 , 819 P.2d 436 ]; 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Punishment, § 472, pp. 631-632.) In the event the jurors at the penalty phase considered Mrs. Toovey’s brief guilt phase testimony concerning her husband, the jurors were entitled to consider that and all other circumstances of the crimes. *152 11. 2008(People v. Kelly (2007) 42 Cal.4th 763, 793 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 531 , 171 P.3d 548 ]; People v. Edwards (1991) 54 Cal.3d 787, 833-836 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 696 , 819 P.2d 436 ]; 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Punishment, § 472, pp. 631-632.) In the event the jurors at the penalty phase considered Mrs. Toovey’s brief guilt phase testimony concerning her husband, the jurors were entitled to consider that and all other circumstances of the crimes. *152 11. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Roldanred2 sentences2008(Id. at p. 819; see People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 732 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ] [ex post facto principles are not violated by applying the Payne rule to cases in which the crimes precede that decision].) Under our law, evidence of specific harm, including the impact on the family of the victim caused by the defendant’s acts, is a circumstance of the crime and is therefore admissible pursuant to section 190.3, factor (a). 2008(Id. at p. 819; see People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 732 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 , 110 P.3d 289 ] [ex post facto principles are not violated by applying the Payne rule to cases in which the crimes precede that decision].) Under our law, evidence of specific harm, including the impact on the family of the victim caused by the defendant’s acts, is a circumstance of the crime and is therefore admissible pursuant to section 190.3, factor (a). | 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. Strong
green
1 sentence2024(See Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 ; Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 463 .) As described ante, when the court of conviction entered its findings against Payne the law was unsettled. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Seneca Insurance
green
1 sentence2024Rather, the court of conviction found the burglary-murder “special circumstance is true” and stated that Payne “ ‘intentionally aided and abetted in the commission of first degree murder’ ” by intentionally restraining Michael 22 “ ‘as Henry Lee Williams accomplished the first degree murder.’ ” (Payne I, supra, A024288, at p. 7.) Similarly, when overruling Payne’s motion to modify, the court of conviction failed to state expressly that it had found Payne harbored an intent to kill. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Curiel
green
2 sentences2024(See Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 ; Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 463 .) As described ante, when the court of conviction entered its findings against Payne the law was unsettled. 2024(See Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708 ; Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 463 .) As described ante, when the court of conviction entered its findings against Payne the law was unsettled. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Gadlin
green
1 sentence2020The superior court granted Payne’s petition, finding that the challenged regulation is void for reasons set forth in In re Gadlin (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 784 (Gadlin), review granted May 15, 2019, S254599. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Stanley
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913, 954 , [reversal on ineffective assistance grounds proper only where “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been more favorable to the defendant. [Citation.]”.) Thus, Payne’s claim of instructional error is meritless. c. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.