81 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,650 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,617 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,293 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,999 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”
Gregg v. Georgia
428 U.S. 153 (1976) Cited 6,625 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,612 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
Pulley v. Harris
465 U.S. 37 (1984) Cited 3,444 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"
Duren v. Missouri
439 U.S. 357 (1979) Cited 2,300 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that underrepresentation was systematic where the jury questionnaire permitted women, but not men, to opt out of jury service
Clemons v. Mississippi
494 U.S. 738 (1990) Cited 950 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Constitution does not prevent a state appellate court from upholding a death sentence that is based in part on an invalid aggravating circumstance either by reweighing the evidence or by harmless error review; remanding for clarification from Mississippi Supreme Court
People v. Zamudio
43 Cal.4th 327 (Cal. 2008) Cited 2,021 times
Finding no error in trial court's refusal to give instruction identical to the one Mora proposed

PEOPLE v. HENRIQUEZ

81 Cited authorities

Holding that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that “[w]hen a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts ‘which the law makes essential to the punishment,’ and the judge exceeds his proper authority”

Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

Holding that the petitioner was not constitutionally entitled to a proportionality review that would "compare Harris's sentence with the sentences imposed in similar capital cases"

Holding that underrepresentation was systematic where the jury questionnaire permitted women, but not men, to opt out of jury service

Holding that the Constitution does not prevent a state appellate court from upholding a death sentence that is based in part on an invalid aggravating circumstance either by reweighing the evidence or by harmless error review; remanding for clarification from Mississippi Supreme Court

Finding no error in trial court's refusal to give instruction identical to the one Mora proposed