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 3 courts 1948–2015 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. Hardygreen2 sentences2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 479 .) The California Supreme Court explained this was required because, in such statutes, the defenses negated an element of the offense in question. ( Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 75-76; Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 480 .) Requiring a defendant to prove the existence of an affirmative defense by a burden higher than merely raising a reasonable doubt an element has been negated would violate the “ ‘cardinal rule in criminal cases that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt . . . , and [that] it is error to de 2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 479 .) The California Supreme Court explained this was required because, in such statutes, the defenses negated an element of the offense in question. ( Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 75-76; Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 480 .) Requiring a defendant to prove the existence of an affirmative defense by a burden higher than merely raising a reasonable doubt an element has been negated would violate the “ ‘cardinal rule in criminal cases that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt . . . , and [that] it is error to de | 2 | 3 |
People v. Sherowgreen2 sentences2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 479 .) The California Supreme Court explained this was required because, in such statutes, the defenses negated an element of the offense in question. ( Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 75-76; Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 480 .) Requiring a defendant to prove the existence of an affirmative defense by a burden higher than merely raising a reasonable doubt an element has been negated would violate the “ ‘cardinal rule in criminal cases that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt . . . , and [that] it is error to de 2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 479 .) The California Supreme Court explained this was required because, in such statutes, the defenses negated an element of the offense in question. ( Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 75-76; Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 480 .) Requiring a defendant to prove the existence of an affirmative defense by a burden higher than merely raising a reasonable doubt an element has been negated would violate the “ ‘cardinal rule in criminal cases that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt . . . , and [that] it is error to de | 2 | 3 |
People v. Mowergreen2 sentences2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 479 .) The California Supreme Court explained this was required because, in such statutes, the defenses negated an element of the offense in question. ( Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 75-76; Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 480 .) Requiring a defendant to prove the existence of an affirmative defense by a burden higher than merely raising a reasonable doubt an element has been negated would violate the “ ‘cardinal rule in criminal cases that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt . . . , and [that] it is error to de 2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 479 .) The California Supreme Court explained this was required because, in such statutes, the defenses negated an element of the offense in question. ( Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 75-76; Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 480 .) Requiring a defendant to prove the existence of an affirmative defense by a burden higher than merely raising a reasonable doubt an element has been negated would violate the “ ‘cardinal rule in criminal cases that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt . . . , and [that] it is error to de | 1 | 3 |
People v. Agnewgreen2 sentences1948(People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 896-897 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] [mitigating circumstances]; People v. Costello, 21 Cal.2d 760, 763 [ 135 P.2d 164 ] [alibi]; People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 389 [intent to marry as defense to charge of taking minor female for purposes of prostitution]; People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 664-666 [ 107 P.2d 601 ] [lawfulness of arrest as defense to false imprisonment]; People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 560-561 [ 209 P. 560 ] [defense of another’s person].) The necessary effect of the instruction given in the present case was to place on defendant not merely the burden of produc 1948(People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 896-897 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] [mitigating circumstances]; People v. Costello, 21 Cal.2d 760, 763 [ 135 P.2d 164 ] [alibi]; People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 389 [intent to marry as defense to charge of taking minor female for purposes of prostitution]; People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 664-666 [ 107 P.2d 601 ] [lawfulness of arrest as defense to false imprisonment]; People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 560-561 [ 209 P. 560 ] [defense of another’s person].) The necessary effect of the instruction given in the present case was to place on defendant not merely the burden of produc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Thomasgreen1 sentence1948(People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 896-897 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] [mitigating circumstances]; People v. Costello, 21 Cal.2d 760, 763 [ 135 P.2d 164 ] [alibi]; People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 389 [intent to marry as defense to charge of taking minor female for purposes of prostitution]; People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 664-666 [ 107 P.2d 601 ] [lawfulness of arrest as defense to false imprisonment]; People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 560-561 [ 209 P. 560 ] [defense of another’s person].) The necessary effect of the instruction given in the present case was to place on defendant not merely the burden of produc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Marshallgreen1 sentence1948(People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 896-897 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] [mitigating circumstances]; People v. Costello, 21 Cal.2d 760, 763 [ 135 P.2d 164 ] [alibi]; People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 389 [intent to marry as defense to charge of taking minor female for purposes of prostitution]; People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 664-666 [ 107 P.2d 601 ] [lawfulness of arrest as defense to false imprisonment]; People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 560-561 [ 209 P. 560 ] [defense of another’s person].) The necessary effect of the instruction given in the present case was to place on defendant not merely the burden of produc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Roegreen2 sentences1948(People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 896-897 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] [mitigating circumstances]; People v. Costello, 21 Cal.2d 760, 763 [ 135 P.2d 164 ] [alibi]; People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 389 [intent to marry as defense to charge of taking minor female for purposes of prostitution]; People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 664-666 [ 107 P.2d 601 ] [lawfulness of arrest as defense to false imprisonment]; People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 560-561 [ 209 P. 560 ] [defense of another’s person].) The necessary effect of the instruction given in the present case was to place on defendant not merely the burden of produc 1948(People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 896-897 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] [mitigating circumstances]; People v. Costello, 21 Cal.2d 760, 763 [ 135 P.2d 164 ] [alibi]; People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 389 [intent to marry as defense to charge of taking minor female for purposes of prostitution]; People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 664-666 [ 107 P.2d 601 ] [lawfulness of arrest as defense to false imprisonment]; People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 560-561 [ 209 P. 560 ] [defense of another’s person].) The necessary effect of the instruction given in the present case was to place on defendant not merely the burden of produc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Costellogreen2 sentences1948(People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 896-897 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] [mitigating circumstances]; People v. Costello, 21 Cal.2d 760, 763 [ 135 P.2d 164 ] [alibi]; People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 389 [intent to marry as defense to charge of taking minor female for purposes of prostitution]; People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 664-666 [ 107 P.2d 601 ] [lawfulness of arrest as defense to false imprisonment]; People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 560-561 [ 209 P. 560 ] [defense of another’s person].) The necessary effect of the instruction given in the present case was to place on defendant not merely the burden of produc 1948(People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880, 896-897 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] [mitigating circumstances]; People v. Costello, 21 Cal.2d 760, 763 [ 135 P.2d 164 ] [alibi]; People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 386, 389 [intent to marry as defense to charge of taking minor female for purposes of prostitution]; People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 664-666 [ 107 P.2d 601 ] [lawfulness of arrest as defense to false imprisonment]; People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548, 560-561 [ 209 P. 560 ] [defense of another’s person].) The necessary effect of the instruction given in the present case was to place on defendant not merely the burden of produc | 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. Neidinger
green
1 sentence2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 479 .) The California Supreme Court explained this was required because, in such statutes, the defenses negated an element of the offense in question. ( Neidinger, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 75-76; Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 480 .) Requiring a defendant to prove the existence of an affirmative defense by a burden higher than merely raising a reasonable doubt an element has been negated would violate the “„cardinal rule in criminal cases that the burden rests on the prosecution to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt . . . , and [that] it is error to dep | 1 | 2015–2015 |