10 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Sanchez

    63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 1,259 times
    Holding that case-specific out-of-court statements offered by an expert and not otherwise admissible are necessarily offered for their truth, in violation of the Confrontation Clause
  2. People v. Gutierrez

    2 Cal.5th 1150 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 157 times
    Finding Batson violation even though "the prosecutor passed on challenges five times while [the eventually struck juror] remained on the panel"
  3. People v. Johnson

    61 Cal.4th 734 (Cal. 2015)   Cited 141 times
    Finding flight instruction does not lessen the prosecution's burden of proof even if the identity of the perpetrator is at issue
  4. People v. Smith

    233 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that "when a defendant is charged with murder in multiple counts based on different theories, a general verdict finding the defendant guilty does not mean that the jury unanimously agreed that any one of the alleged means of committing the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It simply means that the jury unanimously agreed that the offense of murder was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That determination can be based on any combination of findings with respect to the separate theories charged."
  5. State v. Bass

    224 N.J. 285 (N.J. 2016)   Cited 49 times
    Holding an autopsy report by non-testifying medical examiner was testimonial, where autopsy was conducted in presence of police during active homicide investigation
  6. People v. Mack

    167 Ill. 2d 525 (Ill. 1995)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Mack, we recognized the well-settled principle that "`[verdicts] should have a reasonable intendment, receive a reasonable construction, and not be set aside unless from necessity which originates in doubt as to their meaning * * * or a failure to find upon some material issue involved.'"
  7. Rosario v. State

    175 So. 3d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    No. 5D13–1740. 2015-08-28 Luis Gerardo ROSARIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. LAMBERT James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee

  8. Jarrell v. State

    413 S.E.2d 710 (Ga. 1992)   Cited 13 times
    Reversing death sentence where juror who was excused for cause said capital punishment is justifiable for bad crimes but that she had qualms, was not sure she could vote for it, and would probably lean toward a life sentence
  9. Rule 8.77 - Actions by court on receipt of electronically submitted document; date and time of filing

    Cal. R. 8.77   Cited 1 times

    (a) Confirmation of receipt and filing of document (1)Confirmation of receipt When the court receives an electronically submitted document, the court must arrange to promptly send the electronic filer confirmation of the court's receipt of the document, indicating the date and time of receipt by the court. (2)Filing If the electronically submitted document received by the court complies with filing requirements, the document is deemed filed on the date and time it was received by the court as stated

  10. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any