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 2005–2024 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. Minceygreen2 sentences2005(See also People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 441 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 , 827 P.2d 388 ].) Evidence Code section 913, subdivision (b), requires that the court, upon request, give an instruction “that no presumption arises because of the exercise of the privilege and that the jury may not draw any inference therefrom as to the credibility of the witness or as to any matter at issue in the proceeding.” We conclude that the court satisfied this requirement by giving the special instruction. 2005(See also People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 441 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 , 827 P.2d 388 ].) Evidence Code section 913, subdivision (b), requires that the court, upon request, give an instruction “that no presumption arises because of the exercise of the privilege and that the jury may not draw any inference therefrom as to the credibility of the witness or as to any matter at issue in the proceeding.” We conclude that the court satisfied this requirement by giving the special instruction. | 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. Burgener
green
2 sentences2017(Burgener, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 245 .) The record as a whole convinces us the trial court satisfied that requirement and did not err in failing to inform defendant during the Faretta colloquies of the maximum fine on conviction. 2017(Burgener, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 245 .) The record as a whole convinces us the trial court satisfied that requirement and did not err in failing to inform defendant during the Faretta colloquies of the maximum fine on conviction. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Gaines
green
1 sentence2024The Attorney General asserts that if this court determines that Nuno is entitled to Brady disclosure in connection with his evidentiary hearing and “the Brady disclosure falls within the limited scope of matters material to whether [Nuno] intended to kill when he committed the offense of attempted murder, then the appropriate remedy should be similar to that described in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172 as relevant to the appellate review of Pitchess proceedings.” By contrast, Nuno asserts that if this court were to conclude that a has regarding whether the personnel records contain Brad | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Cervantes
green
1 sentence2017But, even if such was error, the record as a whole also convinces us beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant 16 In Cervantes, the defendant had been represented by a public defender before requesting self-representation. ( Cervantes, supra, 87 Cal.App.3d at pp. 286, fn. 1, 294.) After confirming that he knew the charges against him and had completed two years of college, the trial court warned “he would be afforded no ‘special privileges and [would] be treated the same as if [he] had counsel.” (Ibid.) 22 knew what he was doing in requesting self-representation, made his choice with eyes open, | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Faretta v. California
green
1 sentence2017But, even if such was error, the record as a whole also convinces us beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew what he was doing in requesting self-representation, made his choice with eyes open, and would have done the same even if the court had advised him specifically about the maximum potential fine on conviction. 17 (Faretta, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 835 .) *478 When defendant first requested leave to represent himself, he completed a form affirming that he understood the numerous dangers and disadvantages of doing so. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Aranda
green
1 sentence2014(Aranda, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 350 .) Due process was satisfied as to the murder charge because “the trial court repeatedly referred to the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when instructing on the murder charge and its lesser included offenses, clearly and directly connecting the requisite standard of proof to those offenses.” (Aranda, at p. 361, italics added.) In the case before us the trial court referred to proof beyond a reasonable doubt in its instructions on eyewitness identification, circumstantial evidence, the defendant’s right not to testify, and aid | 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.