14 Cited authorities

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (2004) Cited 17,386 times 82 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"
Davis v. Washington
547 U.S. 813 (2006) Cited 4,791 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,455 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
People v. Jennings
50 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,075 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding trial court not required to give sua sponte instruction on "complete defense" of accident that would negate the intent element necessary for first degree murder convictions where defense hinged on facts particular to the case and the defendant failed to request the instruction
People v. Lawley
27 Cal.4th 102 (Cal. 2002) Cited 786 times
Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's exclusion of evidence that did not meet this standard
People v. Jablonski
37 Cal.4th 774 (Cal. 2006) Cited 659 times
Holding that the rule of judicially declared immunity for statements made in a compelled mental competency examination fully protects a defendant against any nonevidentiary uses of statements obtained from the defendant during the competency hearing to the same extent he or she is protected by the privilege against self-incrimination
People v. Cage
40 Cal.4th 965 (Cal. 2007) Cited 540 times
Holding victim's identification of his assailant to treating physician who asked victim "what happened" was nontestimonial statement
People v. D'Arcy
48 Cal.4th 257 (Cal. 2010) Cited 298 times 3 Legal Analyses
Rejecting claim that trial court violated defendant's right to self-representation by misadvising defendant that he could decide which defense theory counsel would present because "defendant fails to show that he actually relied on the court's misadvisement in relinquishing his right to self-representation..."
People v. Collie
30 Cal.3d 43 (Cal. 1981) Cited 377 times
In Collie, the prosecution, after learning in the course of cross-examination that a defense witness had spoken previously to a defense investigator, requested discovery of the notes prepared by the investigator.
People v. Hamilton
48 Cal.3d 1142 (Cal. 1989) Cited 248 times
Granting the prosecution's request to play a taped confession in its entirety after the defense introduced a portion of the tape

PEOPLE v. RICCARDI (JOHN A.)

14 Cited authorities

Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

Holding that statements made "in the course of police interrogation" are testimonial when made under "circumstances objectively indicat[ing] ... that the primary purpose of the interrogation [was] to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution"

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Finding trial court not required to give sua sponte instruction on "complete defense" of accident that would negate the intent element necessary for first degree murder convictions where defense hinged on facts particular to the case and the defendant failed to request the instruction

Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's exclusion of evidence that did not meet this standard

Holding victim's identification of his assailant to treating physician who asked victim "what happened" was nontestimonial statement

In Collie, the prosecution, after learning in the course of cross-examination that a defense witness had spoken previously to a defense investigator, requested discovery of the notes prepared by the investigator.

Granting the prosecution's request to play a taped confession in its entirety after the defense introduced a portion of the tape