noting that the right to a jury determination of whether a prior conviction occurred exists only “in an appropriate case,” and that “depending on the circumstances, the question might well be for the court” rather than the jury
How later courts described this case
- noting that the right to a jury determination of whether a prior conviction occurred exists only “in an appropriate case,” and that “depending on the circumstances, the question might well be for the court” rather than the jury
- positing grounds on which the fact of a prior conviction may be challenged, including mistaken identity and fabricated, insufficient, inaccurate, or inauthentic records
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I dissent.
In People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478, 501 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 582 , 853 P.2d 1037 ], this court recognized that a trial court’s “denial of [a] defendant’s right to a jury trial” is error reversible per se.
*33 The scope of the jury trial that the superior court denied defendant may indeed have been rather limited. But the act by which it effected its denial was altogether egregious.
The Court of Appeal made no effort to salvage the superior court’s' judgment. Neither will I.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.