Case law

People v. Taylor

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 827 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2001

Second, the photograph was relevant to establish that a murder had in fact occurred. ( Ibid. ) And third, the photograph showed that the victims had been handcuffed together, supporting the prosecutor's theory of a planned … Our cases allow use of a felony to qualify a defendant both for first degree murder and for a special circumstance justifying the death penalty. (See People v.

People v. Cage

62 Cal. 4th 256 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 2015

He complains that if bringing a gun along were to demonstrate the required planning activity, every gun killing in California would qualify as premeditated and deliberate first degree murder. … The court‟s exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless the probative value of the photographs clearly is outweighed by their prejudicial effect. [Citations.]” [Citation.]

People v. Hill

3 Cal. 4th 959 · California Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1992

The record does not establish the identity of the spectator. … The record in this case establishes no prejudice. *1003 Juror Selection Issues I.

People v. Ashley

42 Cal. 2d 246 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1954

The testimony of various witnesses and the opening of the escrow clearly corroborate Mrs. … All the cases cited in this connection are, of course, out of line with the traditional view that proof of a false promise does not establish the crime.

Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2020

To begin with, the statutory causes of action established by the UCL and FAL are clearly not of like nature or of the same class as any common law right of action. (Cf. … Code, §§ 17203, 17535) — are clearly equitable in nature.

Reichert v. General Insurance of America

68 Cal. 2d 822 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1968

We have said that the "statutes in this state clearly manifest a policy in favor of the free transferability of all types of property, including rights under contracts." ( Farmland Irr. Co. v. … Indeed, for our present purposes the bankruptcy allegation appears as well established as if the original complaint had been verified.

People v. Jackson

13 Cal. 4th 1164 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1996

But the mere fact that subjective factors are sometimes key to a peremptory challenge does not categorically immunize a trial court’s decision on a Wheeler motion from appellate review. … Juror William Clark stated that drug users “need counseling and to establish positive goals in life without drugs.” Juror Michael Gray stated that drug users “need help.”

People v. Martinez

47 Cal. 4th 911 · California Supreme Court · Jan 14, 2010

Esten did not believe the item should have qualified as a weapon and would have been more concerned if it had been a sharpened piece of metal. … is called into question, a hearing to determine the facts is clearly contemplated.’ ” (People v.

People v. Bemore

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 840 · California Supreme Court · Apr 20, 2000

The time of the crime was established primarily through witnesses who lived nearby. … Effective Representation—Death Qualification Defendant contends various acts of ineffective assistance of counsel deprived him of a properly death-qualified jury, and violated his federal and state constitutional rights to

Browne v. Superior Court

16 Cal. 2d 593 · California Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1940

He qualified as such and entered upon his duties. Mrs. Browne remained in Santa Barbara until October, 1936. … First there is the petition brought to establish the incompetency of the ward and to obtain the appointment of a guardian.

People v. Guerra

40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118 · California Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2006

But, as stated, the declarant’s mental state or conduct must be at issue to qualify for admission under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule. (People v. Noguera, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 621.) … We disagree because defendant did not clearly argue absence of planning even in the new trial motion.

People v. Stayner

California Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2026

Clearly, he favors the death penalty, but that does not mean under the law that there is a legal challenge for cause. … Dietz did not qualify as an expert under Evidence Code section 720. As noted by the court, Dr.

De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego

45 Cal. 2d 546 · California Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1955

Furthermore, in determining the income to be capitalized to establish value for appraisal purposes, no deduction can be made for amortization. … Nor does near equality of the leasehold values to those of the fee constitute a violation of the immunity of the federal government from taxation by the states.

In re Lopez

California Supreme Court · Apr 3, 2023

Both were granted immunity, and their accounts of the night’s events were largely consistent. Dragoman had been in a relationship with Amante for several years, and they had a child together. … He explained, “In this case, there is no burden on the People to establish who the actual stabber was . . . .

Archer v. City of Los Angeles

19 Cal. 2d 19 · California Supreme Court · Nov 14, 1941

The principles of law, if they may be called such, announced in the majority opinion, are clearly contrary to the settled law of California and the weight of authority elsewhere. … Village of Buffalo, 73 Minn. 347 , 76 N.W. 44 , is clearly not in point.

People v. Majors

75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 684 · California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1998

Prior to testifying at defendant’s preliminary hearing, Hogue was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony. … More importantly, question No. 51A was clearly phrased in the present tense. We cannot fault Mohr’s decision to respond to the question as phrased.

People v. Daniels

221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 777 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 2017

Moreover, Judge Long did inquire about Daniels’s present mental health and whether Daniels was “thinking clearly.” … For the purpose of addressing this claim, we assume — but do not decide — that a “slow plea” qualifies as a “plea” within the meaning of section 1018.

People v. Partida

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 644 · California Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2005

Finally, it found the perceived error harmless under the test for state law error established in People v. … The majority never explains what qualifies as a claim and what qualifies as a legal consequence (or how to distinguish between the two), nor does the majority explain why the former is barred but the *657 latter is preserved

People v. Holmes, McClain & Newborn

12 Cal. 5th 719 · California Supreme Court · Jan 31, 2022

“A court may . . . consider nondiscriminatory reasons for a peremptory challenge that are apparent from and ‘clearly established’ in the record [citations] and that necessarily dispel 41 … That circumstance alone clearly cannot establish that the jury failed to give each defendant individualized consideration.’ ” (Ibid.) So too here. Each defendant presented their own mitigation evidence.

Pico Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Santa Monica

California Supreme Court · Sep 20, 2023

An at-large electoral system or multimember district 2 can qualify as a prohibited practice under the VRA when the plaintiff can show that a bloc-voting majority is 2 “In an at-large (or multi-member district) system … Furthermore, the Legislature clearly intended to make the CVRA more expansive than the VRA — by, for example, explicitly recognizing claims based on dilution of the “ability to influence the outcome of an election.”