Case law

In Re Mooney

10 Cal. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1937

friend, to petitioner’s sister-in-law offering her immunity for her sister, petitioner’s wife, in the event she would change the time that they assertedly had gone on to the Eilers roof to watch the parade. … With this rule in mind, we will make reference, as indicative of the propensities of petitioner, to his revolutionary activities which clearly establish his aim and purpose to weaken and undermine, with the view of ultimate

People v. Frederickson

California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 2020

A newsperson’s immunity, however, must yield to a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. (Id. at p. 805; People v. … Indeed, he has not established that such notes even existed.

People v. Frederickson

California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 2020

A newsperson’s immunity, however, must yield to a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. (Id. at p. 805; People v. … Indeed, he has not established that such notes even existed.

People v. Aguirre

California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2025

Even if the record did not clearly establish that the prospective juror had heard about Dragon Family/Dragon Family Junior, as opposed to some other gang he associated with the case, any mistaken assumption by the prosecutor … The qualifying offenses referenced in this provision are set out at section 186.22, subdivision (e)(1)(A)–(Z).

People v. Murtishaw

48 Cal. 3d 1001 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1989

Although defendant asserts the legal definition of first degree murder is "eminently qualified" as a point of law "arising in the case," we disagree. … It was thus clearly error for the trial court to have used the instructions based on the 1978 law.

People v. Marks

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 252 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2003

Defendant argues the jury likewise might have found defendant competent simply to prevent his permanent immunity from punishment. … Defendant has never established the invalidity of his prior conviction, and therefore the instruction was proper. 3.

People v. Wrest

3 Cal. 4th 1088 · California Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1992

After 11 court days of voir dire and examination, a jury was death qualified and impaneled to try the cause. … Each of appellant’s claims lacks merit, was waived, or was clearly harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

People v. Sapp

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 554 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 2003

Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 720 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 928 P.2d 485 ].) “ ‘ “The burden is on the party seeking severance to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be … Notwithstanding that immunity, the court added, a criminal defendant may be entitled *272 to discover information otherwise subject to the shield law. (Ibid.) Quoting Hammarley v.

People v. Walker

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 75 · California Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2002

As these reports reflect, the Legislature evidently views those who qualify under section 12022.1—defendants convicted of both the primary felony and the secondary felony—as being particularly deserving of increased punishment … Furthermore, although the Legislature clearly intended the increased punishment mandated by the general on-bail enhancement to apply to the great bulk of felonies (for example, robbery, burglary, or rape) that may be committed

Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp.

8 Cal. 2d 241 · California Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1937

In November of 1928 this company qualified to do business in California, and since that time its principal place of business has been California. … This principle is elementary, and is clearly stated in 1 Mechem on Agency, second edition, page 560, section 789, as follows: “As has already been pointed out, every delegation of authority, whether it be general or special

People v. Moore

43 Cal. 2d 517 · California Supreme Court · Oct 22, 1954

adversary, the right to stand his ground and thus defend himself is not immediately available to him, but, instead he first must decline to carry on the affray, must honestly endeavor to escape from it, and must fairly and clearly … Obviously the instruction as requested, lacking the qualifying element that the threats, if made and communicated to defendant, were believed by her or at least made her more apprehensive of peril, is not a complete and accurate

People v. Marshall

13 Cal. 4th 799 · California Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

The problem we addressed in Stone was the unfairness of forcing a defendant to stand trial a second time for a murder of which a jury clearly and unanimously agreed he was not guilty, simply for lack of an established procedure … Defendant does not clearly identify how the jury might have been misled.

People v. Jackson

58 Cal. 4th 724 · California Supreme Court · Mar 3, 2014

.. may be applied with like force to stun belts which are not necessarily visible to the jury”] with Mungo, supra, 987 A.2d at pp. 1149-1150 [concluding on plain error review that Deck does not entail that “a stun belt qualifies … It is well established that “a court should impose the least restrictive measure that will satisfy the court’s legitimate security concerns . . . .”

People v. Cook

47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 22 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 2006

The defense further sought to establish that Bettencourt’s killing was at most second degree murder. … There was no infringement of defendant’s state or federal constitutional rights because his jury was death-qualified. (People v. Lenart, supra, 32 Cal.4th 1107, 1120 .)

People v. Frierson

25 Cal. 3d 142 · California Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1979

This issue has arisen with frequency and the applicable principles are well established. … Although those cases clearly establish the importance of permitting a defendant to introduce whatever mitigating evidence he has, they do little to clarify the implementation of the mitigating factor requirement.

Maidman v. Jewish Publications, Inc.

54 Cal. 2d 643 · California Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1960

It was therefore of legitimate interest to members of that community, who would be the most likely readers of the defendant newspaper, to know whether Maidman was qualified for his position. (Brewer v. … The editorial so worded would clearly not be libelous.

People v. Reyes

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 734 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1998

Just as the parolee possesses a qualified liberty that is partway between that of a free adult and that of a prisoner serving a sentence within prison walls, so also the standard for judicial review appropriate for parole … First, principles of judicial restraint counsel against reaching out and overruling Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d 505 , 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 , as the searching officers in this case clearly possessed a reasonable

People v. Armstrong

243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105 · California Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2019

A jury candidate who will not, or cannot, follow a statutory framework, is not qualified to serve. … She challenged for cause or used peremptories against many White jurors who did not clearly view death as more severe.

People v. Sakarias

94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 17 · California Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2000

Thus, the question whether Viivi was killed with the intent to take property from her, or whether the taking was merely an afterthought to the killing, was clearly presented to, and resolved by, the jury. (See People v. … Ribe would have simply repeated that opinion, contradicted it, or explained or qualified it.

People v. Hin

California Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2025

Where joinder is proper under section 954, “[t]he burden is on the party seeking severance to clearly establish that there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the charges be separately tried.” (People v. … In Banks, we delineated several factors that a jury should consider in weighing whether a felony-murder defendant’s participation was “ ‘major’ ” enough to qualify for the death penalty: his role in planning the target offense