42 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 5 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. Collinsgreen2 sentences1991Although People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 383-388 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 899 , 722 P.2d 173 ] ( Collins ), requires a defendant to testify in order to raise a Castro claim of improper impeachment on appeal, this rule applies to trials beginning after Collins became final. 1991Although People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 383-388 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 899 , 722 P.2d 173 ] ( Collins ), requires a defendant to testify in order to raise a Castro claim of improper impeachment on appeal, this rule applies to trials beginning after Collins became final. | 6 | 11 |
People v. Mansfieldgreen2 sentences1994In People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 87 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 800 ], the Court of Appeal summarized the Castro rule: “Pursuant to People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 301 , and subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, only prior felony convictions that necessarily involve moral turpitude may be used to impeach a witness in a criminal proceeding. 1994In People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82, 87 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 800 ], the Court of Appeal summarized the Castro rule: “Pursuant to People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 301 , and subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, only prior felony convictions that necessarily involve moral turpitude may be used to impeach a witness in a criminal proceeding. | 6 | 7 |
In Re Craiggreen2 sentences1989We summarized the Castro rule in People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 800 ]: “Pursuant to People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 301 , and subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, only prior felony convictions that necessarily involve moral turpitude may be used to impeach a witness in a criminal proceeding. {Id. at p. 306.) ‘Moral turpitude’ means a general ‘ “readiness to do evil” ’ {id. at p. 314), i.e., ‘an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, 1989We summarized the Castro rule in People v. Mansfield (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 82 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 800 ]: “Pursuant to People v. Castro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 301 , and subject to the trial court’s discretion under Evidence Code section 352, only prior felony convictions that necessarily involve moral turpitude may be used to impeach a witness in a criminal proceeding. {Id. at p. 306.) ‘Moral turpitude’ means a general ‘ “readiness to do evil” ’ {id. at p. 314), i.e., ‘an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, | 3 | 3 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences1986In that event the court may hold there was no Castro error. [12] Although stated negatively, this is the familiar test of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]. 1986In that event the court may hold there was no Castro error. [12] Although stated negatively, this is the familiar test of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Crumegreen2 sentences1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 | 2 | 2 |
People v. LaMantaingreen2 sentences1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Ruizgreen2 sentences1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Valenciagreen2 sentences1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Millergreen2 sentences1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Brittgreen2 sentences1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Fostergreen2 sentences1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 1981“It is not necessary that the particular act or acts committed so agreed upon be stated in the verdict.” The Castro rule is inapplicable where (unlike the situation in the instant case) only the offense charged is proved (People v. Ruiz (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 59, 61-62 [ 317 P.2d 80 ] (possession of narcotics); People v. Valencia (1927) 85 Cal.App. 306, 309-310 [259 R 361] (rape); People v. Britt (1923) 62 Cal.App. 674, 681 [217 R 767] (incest and rape)) or where CALJIC No. 17.01 or a similar instruction in fact is given (People v. Crume (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 803, 809, fn. 4 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 577 | 2 | 2 |
People v. Castrogreen2 sentences2014Specifically, he claims that his counsel: (1) failed to move to preclude the prosecution from 10 impeaching him with his prior felony convictions pursuant to People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301 and Evidence Code section 352 (a Castro motion); (2) failed to move to bifurcate the prison prior allegations; (3) failed to seek redaction of prejudicial matters in the interrogation transcript and audio recording; and (4) failed to move in limine to exclude any mention of confidential informants and Deputy Woginrich’s prior contacts with defendant. 2002Anticipating that the prosecution would introduce such evidence as impeachment should he testify, defendant moved to exclude evidence of these convictions pursuant to Evidence Code section 3 52. 11 His motion addressed the law both pre-Proposition 8 (People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 ] (Beagle)) and post-Proposition 8 (People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 696 P.2d 111 ] (Castro)). 12 The trial court discussed the motion as a “Castro motion” and ruled all four convictions were admissible for impeachment purposes. 13 *607 Defendant later | 1 | 13 |
Luce v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1986In addition, with respect to future cases, I fully concur with part I of the majority opinion which adopts the rule of Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 443 , 104 S.Ct. 460 ], that denial of a motion to exclude a prior conviction is not reviewable on appeal unless the defendant took the stand to testify in his defense. 1986In addition, with respect to future cases, I fully concur with part I of the majority opinion which adopts the rule of Luce v. United States (1984) 469 U.S. 38 [ 83 L.Ed.2d 443 , 104 S.Ct. 460 ], that denial of a motion to exclude a prior conviction is not reviewable on appeal unless the defendant took the stand to testify in his defense. | 1 | 2 |
Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.green1 sentence2013We do not take judicial notice of records that were not before the trial court (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 ) and the proffered records are irrelevant to the question of whether the court properly denied Linquist’s motion for class certification (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 544, fn. 4 ). (3) Notice of appeal— The concern underlying Linquist’s desire for this court to review rulings on Castro’s motion and to take judicial notice of the identified records is that Linquist fears certain issues will go unaddressed because of t | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. City of Los Angelesgreen1 sentence2013We do not take judicial notice of records that were not before the trial court (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 ) and the proffered records are irrelevant to the question of whether the court properly denied Linquist’s motion for class certification (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 544, fn. 4 ). (3) Notice of appeal— The concern underlying Linquist’s desire for this court to review rulings on Castro’s motion and to take judicial notice of the identified records is that Linquist fears certain issues will go unaddressed because of t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Langgreen2 sentences2012(People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1011-1012 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 782 P.2d 627 ].) Such is the case here. 2012(People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1011-1012 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 386 , 782 P.2d 627 ].) Such is the case here. | 1 | 1 |
| Castro v. Los Angeles Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Manuel L.green | 1 | 1 |
| Governing Board of Rialto Unified School District v. Manngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Penziner v. West American Finance Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Armendarizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Friesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Waldeckergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rodriguezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Flanagangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Courtneygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Frankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Greengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Parrishgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Deptulagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. McCulloughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Diedrichgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Woodberrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Guillebeaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Romerogreen | 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. Glaser
green
2 sentences2022In reviewing the trial court’s denial of Castro’s motion to suppress evidence, “we defer to the magistrate’s factual findings [where supported by substantial evidence] and, exercising our independent judgment, determine whether, ‘on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’ ” (People v. McGee (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 796 , 800 (McGee), quoting People v. Glazer (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 .) As set forth above, the magistrate took the facts from Officer Zendejas’s testimony at Castro’s preliminary hearing, which we summarized above. 2022In reviewing the trial court’s denial of Castro’s motion to suppress evidence, “we defer to the magistrate’s factual findings [where supported by substantial evidence] and, exercising our independent judgment, determine whether, ‘on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’ ” (People v. McGee (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 796 , 800 (McGee), quoting People v. Glazer (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 .) As set forth above, the magistrate took the facts from Officer Zendejas’s testimony at Castro’s preliminary hearing, which we summarized above. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
People v. D.W. (In re D.W.)
green
2 sentences2022After hearing opposing argument from the deputy district attorney, the magistrate granted Castro’s motion to suppress, relying on In re D.W. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1249 , a case which examined whether a search of a minor’s “person was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it did not properly fall within the exception to the warrant requirement for a search incident to an arrest.” (Id. at p. 1251, italics added.)2 The magistrate also granted Castro’s motion to dismiss the case, which the deputy district attorney agreed she had no ground to oppose after the magistrate’s suppression of the ev 2022After hearing opposing argument from the deputy district attorney, the magistrate granted Castro’s motion to suppress, relying on In re D.W. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1249 , a case which examined whether a search of a minor’s “person was invalid under the Fourth Amendment because it did not properly fall within the exception to the warrant requirement for a search incident to an arrest.” (Id. at p. 1251, italics added.)2 The magistrate also granted Castro’s motion to dismiss the case, which the deputy district attorney agreed she had no ground to oppose after the magistrate’s suppression of the ev | 2 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Madden
green
2 sentences1991The Attorney General cites the statement in People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 216 , footnote 4, [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ], that “[t]he Castro rule *880 is inapplicable where . . . 1991The Attorney General cites the statement in People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 216 , footnote 4, [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ], that “[t]he Castro rule *880 is inapplicable where . . . | 2 | 1984–1991 |
Schwartzman v. Wilshinsky
green
2 sentences2026(Schwartzman v. Wilshinsky (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 619, 626 .) The only trial court documents included in the clerk’s transcript are the case register, the order denying Castro’s motion, and a nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical error in that order.3 Because no briefs or exhibits were included in the clerk’s transcript, the record does not reflect what evidence the trial court considered. 2026(Schwartzman v. Wilshinsky (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 619, 626 .) The only trial court documents included in the clerk’s transcript are the case register, the order denying Castro’s motion, and a nunc pro tunc order correcting a clerical error in that order.3 Because no briefs or exhibits were included in the clerk’s transcript, the record does not reflect what evidence the trial court considered. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Mendoza v. City of West Covina
green
1 sentence2026We usually defer to the jury’s discretion unless the record shows inflammatory evidence, misleading instructions, or improper argument by counsel that would suggest the jury relied on improper considerations. [Citation.] We will interfere only when the award is so disproportionate to the injuries suffered that it shocks the conscience and virtually compels the conclusion the award was based on passion or prejudice.” (Mendoza v. City of West Covina (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 702, 720-721 .) 21 We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mrs. Castro’s motion for new trial. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Habash v. L.A Pacific Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348 .) We would affirm the order denying Castro’s claim of exemption if it is supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Ray
green
1 sentence2021(Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 349 ; Musselwhite, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1260 .) Castro contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress his statements made to law enforcement and for not objecting to the prosecution’s references to those statements throughout trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2021The burden is on Castro to “overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’ ” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 689 .) Because the record does not explain why counsel chose not to object or suppress, Castro’s claim must be rejected unless the record positively excludes a rational basis for trial counsel’s choice. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Musselwhite
green
2 sentences2021(Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 349 ; Musselwhite, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1260 .) Castro contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress his statements made to law enforcement and for not objecting to the prosecution’s references to those statements throughout trial. 2021(Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 349 ; Musselwhite, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 1260 .) Castro contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress his statements made to law enforcement and for not objecting to the prosecution’s references to those statements throughout trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Chapman v. California
red
1 sentence2014(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 835-836 .) There is no reasonable possibility the jury would have been improperly influenced by the detective's brief reference to arrest reports. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Stratton
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Stratton, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 97 .) Defendant argues his trial counsel was ineffective for having failed to object when the prosecutor mistakenly questioned him about “zero point eight” grams of methamphetamine rather than 0.08 grams. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013We are bound by decisions of the California Supreme Court (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 ) and therefore reject Castro’s claim of instructional error. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc. v. United States Sentencing Commission
neutral
2 sentences2007(See, e.g., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. v. United States Sentencing Commission (1988) 680 F.Supp. 26 ; Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Major Advocacy Report 2005 [highlighting "the year's efforts to support our assistance to individual clients by working to more broadly challenge conditions of poverty and injustice"].) [1] Shadonna did present evidence of some problematic or potentially problematic practices in CLC during the relevant period, but they were not problematic in ways which affect the Castro analysis. 2007(See, e.g., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. v. United States Sentencing Commission (1988) 680 F.Supp. 26 ; Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Major Advocacy Report 2005 [highlighting "the year's efforts to support our assistance to individual clients by working to more broadly challenge conditions of poverty and injustice"].) [1] Shadonna did present evidence of some problematic or potentially problematic practices in CLC during the relevant period, but they were not problematic in ways which affect the Castro analysis. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Beagle green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Ostrow v. Municipal Court green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| People v. Brown green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Deere green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| California v. Brown green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Minor green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| People v. Fosselman green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. Holmes green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| People v. Bracamonte green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.
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.