Case law

In Re Martinez

46 Cal. 4th 945 · California Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2009

Avena and the Presidential Memorandum do not preempt this State’s procedural bars and do not qualify as previously unavailable factual or legal bases, the Court should summarily deny Martinez’s petition as procedurally barred … This rule was stated clearly in In re Conner [(1940)] 16 Cal.2d 701, 705 [ 108 P.2d 10 ]: ‘In this state a defendant is not permitted to try out his contentions piecemeal by successive proceedings attacking the validity of

People v. McPeters

2 Cal. 4th 1148 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1992

Both the actual taking of property and the intent to steal are established by substantial, although not uncontradicted, evidence. … Thus, the court was well aware of the robbery-murder special circumstance; it clearly and explicitly endorsed the jury’s finding in that respect.

American Bank & Trust Co. v. Community Hospital

36 Cal. 3d 359 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 1984

It is well established that the constitutional guarantee entitles the parties in a personal injury action to a jury finding on the quantum of damages. (See Langdon v. … “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (b).)

People v. Lightsey

54 Cal. 4th 668 · California Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2012

That type of substantive error clearly would require reversal of the entire judgment. … “The set of special circumstances qualifying a first degree murder for capital sentencing (§ 190.2) is not impermissibly broad. [Citation.]

People v. Lucky

45 Cal. 3d 259 · California Supreme Court · May 16, 1988

The record clearly reveals that defendant in this case failed to meet this initial burden. … The record clearly indicates that Mr.

People v. Rodrigues

8 Cal. 4th 1060 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1994

In this case, neither incompetence nor prejudice has been established. … Thus, even if the question could be deemed a statement, it clearly was not made to law enforcement officials in the hope of leniency or immunity. (Compare with People v. Belton, supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 519, 525.)

People v. Chandler

60 Cal. 4th 508 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2014

In addressing the question before us, we leave undisturbed the foregoing principles of the law of attempt, which are well established. … Consistent with these principles, the high court has made clear that any statute that “makes criminal a form of pure speech . . . must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind.” (Watts v.

People v. Ng

13 Cal. 5th 448 · California Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2022

Finally, defendant cannot establish prejudice. … During her initial testimony, the defense introduced, by stipulation, the terms of her immunity agreement with the prosecution. Neither party asked her any questions.

People v. Jasso

California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2025

Background The prosecution granted Benjamin Pinela use immunity so that he would testify about giving Jasso a firearm. … It need not be sufficient to establish every element of the charged offense or to establish the precise facts to which the accomplice testified. [Citations.]

People v. Crandell

46 Cal. 3d 833 · California Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1988

The instructions advise the jury to determine what significance, if any, should be given to evidence of consciousness of guilt, and caution that such evidence is not sufficient to establish guilt, thereby clearly implying … Because the multiple-murder special circumstance does not define a crime separate from the qualifying murders, there is no need to impose a mental element requirement.

Ramirez v. Brown

9 Cal. 3d 199 · California Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1973

Our alternative writ of mandate directed that respondents “register to vote all ex-felons whose term[s] of incarceration and parole have expired and who upon application demonstrate that they are otherwise fully qualified … At the time of Otsuka , however, the contours of that requirement had not been clearly delineated by the United States Supreme Court. The most recent authority then was Harper v.

Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc.

1 Cal. 5th 994 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 2016

The complaints do not clearly allege when the Health Plans first entered into their delegation contracts with the three La Vida entities. … The law requires emergency medical services or care to be provided at any licensed hospital that has appropriate facilities and qualified personnel regardless of a patient‟s ability to pay. (§ 1317, subds.

People v. Hannon

19 Cal. 3d 588 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1977

Nothing in Leach’s testimony established that defendant’s attorney instructed Brown not to speak to a representative of the People. … In Weiss a witness who had an abortion performed on her by one of the codefendants was granted immunity from prosecution and led law enforcement officers to the location where the abortion took place.

People v. Holloway

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 212 · California Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2004

The cited decisions, as a group, may be read to establish “that the victim’s lack of clothing ... is insufficient to establish specific sexual intent.” (People v. … Defendant contends the deputy, who had four years’ experience as a jail guard, was “clearly qualified to speak about adjustment of inmates to a structured setting,” so that the court, in excluding his testimony, abused its

Brown v. Superior Court

33 Cal. 3d 242 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1982

Yet clearly those sections and like laws are valid. … As real party observes, chapter 959 purported to create a new Sixth District of the Court of Appeal having no preexisting justices qualified to perform such representation.

Fluor Corporation v. Super. Ct.

61 Cal. 4th 1175 · California Supreme Court · Aug 20, 2015

Clearly, if this is not now law, it ought to be made such by the legislature. Such a covenant is grossly oppressive.” (Draft Field Code, supra, at p. 417.) … In that case, in which we addressed the viability of a (disapproved) action against an insurance company for unfair practices, we simply applied the requirement, clearly established in our prior cases, that there must be

People v. Jennings

46 Cal. 3d 963 · California Supreme Court · Sep 19, 1988

McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 137 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 ], is that trial by a “death-qualified” jury (Witherspoon v. … The evidence was clearly sufficient to establish the use of force by defendant. The child did not submit. He turned her onto her back and lay on top of her. People v.

People v. Montes

California Supreme Court · May 21, 2014

that Sergeant Beard was not qualified to testify as an expert. … Defendant points to Williams, in which the officers who qualified as gang experts had more years of experience with gangs and more hours of specialized training, and had qualified as gang experts in prior trials.

Gassman v. Governing Board of Rincon Valley Union School District

18 Cal. 3d 137 · California Supreme Court · Sep 30, 1976

Although the notice clearly indicated that plaintiffs were not being laid off for misconduct or professional in competency of any kind, it specified that the district, in effecting the layoff, was purporting to act under … Relying on this emphasized language, defendant district contends that if the constitutional debt-limitation provision establishes an economic ground for dismissal independent of section 13447, as the Martin dictum suggests

People v. Mickey

54 Cal. 3d 612 · California Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1991

It also included testimony by Edward Rogers, who was an accomplice and took the stand under a grant of immunity. The tale told is long and detailed. Its substance is as follows. … In this case, Edward Rogers, who is equally culpable as a principal in these crimes, was granted complete immunity from the charges of murder in this case and was further granted immunity from perjury with respect to statements