Case law

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

People v. Beck

8 Cal. 5th 548 · California Supreme Court · Dec 2, 2019

Beck and Cruz also assert Prospective Juror D.D. was qualified to serve because she offered examples of when she believed the death penalty was appropriate. … Beck and Cruz then objected to any further questioning on the grounds that M.L. was qualified to serve and that further questioning would prejudice the defendants.

Prang v. Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals Bd.

California Supreme Court · May 30, 2024

To interpret the phrase to refer directly to interests in an entity, as the trustees urge, would contradict the Legislature’s clearly expressed intent. … The trustees do not, however, establish that our construction would “ ‘frustrate the manifest purpose of the legislation as a whole or otherwise lead to absurd results.’ ” (Siry Investment, L.P. v.

People v. Hin

California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 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

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. Lindberg

45 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2008

A lesser degree of similarity is required to establish the existence of a common plan or scheme and still less similarity is required to establish intent. (People v. … The trial court overruled defendant’s objections and found Miller qualified as an expert on the subject of “White supremacist groups and their teachings and thinking.”

People v. Superior Court

107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 2001

These passages clearly authorize the specified professionals to raise at such a hearing privileges set forth in division 8 of the Evidence Code and to seek to preclude disclosure of the items to the authorities. … As established above (pt.

People v. Black

29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 740 · California Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2005

Statutes must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears." ( Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. … (a)(1), (8)); the jury also found that the three crimes involved multiple victims, qualifying him for an indeterminate sentence under the "One Strike" law (§ 667.61).

People v. Lenix

44 Cal. 4th 602 · California Supreme Court · Jul 24, 2008

The Supreme Court was clearly skeptical of the conclusions of these courts and legitimately so. … It noted the “bare statistics,” in which the prosecutors used peremptory challenges to excuse nine of the 10 Blacks found qualified to serve. (Id. at pp. 240-241.)

People v. Brooks

219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 331 · California Supreme Court · Mar 20, 2017

For support, he points to the recommendation in the 1989 American Bar Association's Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (1989) (ABA Guidelines) that "two qualified trial … In the court's view, "the answer to that question could very clearly have changed the jury's thinking about this case."

People v. Emanuel

California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 2025

is insufficient without more to establish reckless indifference. … While postflight conduct may shed light on a defendant’s state of mind, conduct temporally removed from the violent act must clearly evince a culpable mental state.

People v. Roberts

2 Cal. 4th 271 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1992

United States (1987) 483 U.S. 171, 181 [ 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 156 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 ] [applying federal “clearly erroneous” standard].) … But clearly the evidence was offered in rebuttal to defendant’s testimony that he had reformed and was trying to leave the BGF.

Atlantic Oil Co. v. County of Los Angeles

69 Cal. 2d 585 · California Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1968

“Taxation of property at its value without regard to the owner’s equity therein is an established principle of ad valorem taxation. … Walden, supra, 4 Cal.2d 637, 655 ), and the intention to create such unity of possession must clearly appear. (La Laguna Ranch Co. v. Dodge, supra, 18 Cal.2d 132, 138 .)

People v. Smith, Jr.

61 Cal. 4th 18 · California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2015

Schoenthaler conducted telephone interviews with 131 Shasta County residents who qualified for jury service. Forty-nine percent of the respondents had concluded defendant was guilty. … None of these jurors had any clearly formed memories, and several mentioned how long it had been since the news reports.

People v. Marquez

1 Cal. 4th 553 · California Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1992

There could be no valid claim here that Harris was immune from prosecution because his person was the fruit of an illegal arrest. [Citation.] … Defendant next contends that section 190.5 violates due process because it establishes a presumption that any capital defendant has attained the age of 18.

People v. Williams

61 Cal. 4th 1244 · California Supreme Court · Aug 24, 2015

He clearly contemplated a robbery, not the mere theft of an unattended vehicle. Defendant intended that the gun be used to commit a carjacking and, if necessary, to shoot the victim. … The second note reflects confusion over who qualifies as a principal. A ―non principal‖ cannot commit a crime because, by definition, one who commits a crime is a principal.

Conservatorship of Valerie N.

40 Cal. 3d 143 · California Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1985

and the family counselor no evidence was offered to establish that alternative less intrusive methods of birth control are unavailable. … It clearly is not a personal choice, and no amount of legal legerdemain can make it so." ( Id., at p. 893.)

People v. Earp

85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 857 · California Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1999

We agree with the trial court that any photographs taken during the August 31, 1988, physical examination would not qualify under the relevant constitutional standard as material evidence. (Kyles v. … The same is true with regard to facts establishing the special circumstances.

Waller v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Inc.

11 Cal. 4th 1 · California Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1995

In our view, the damages claim for emotional and physical distress is clearly derivative of and caused by the economic loss suffered by Amey." … (Minn. 1993) 497 N.W.2d 254, 257 ["emotional distress with appreciable physical manifestations can qualify as a `bodily injury' within the meaning of the insurance policy"; as here, policy defined "bodily injury" as "bodily

People v. Duff

58 Cal. 4th 527 · California Supreme Court · Jan 30, 2014

(a)]), firearm-use enhancements (former § 12022.53), and a prior serious felony conviction qualifying as a strike (§§ 245, subd. (b), 667, subds. (a)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12). … “To establish a valid Miranda waiver, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances of