54 Cited authorities

Zafiro v. United States
506 U.S. 534 (1993) Cited 3,801 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court's jury instructions may cure any risk of prejudice from antagonistic defenses
People v. Doolin
45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009) Cited 3,865 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied
P1eople. v. Hill
17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998) Cited 3,798 times
Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"
People v. Mitchell
26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001) Cited 2,466 times
Noting that a certified abstract of judgment "constitutes the commitment" and serves as "the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect"
People v. Cunningham
25 Cal.4th 926 (Cal. 2001) Cited 2,378 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that error in the exclusion of defense evidence "on a minor or subsidiary point" as opposed to "the complete exclusion of evidence intended to establish an accuseds defense" is subject to review under Watson standard
People v. Avila
38 Cal.4th 491 (Cal. 2006) Cited 1,574 times
Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted
People v. Ewoldt
7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) Cited 2,251 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "least degree of similarity" between two offenses is required to prove intent.
People v. Jenkins
22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000) Cited 1,616 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "it was not error to refuse to permit counsel to ask questions based upon an account of the facts of this case, or to ask a juror to consider particular facts that would cause him or her to impose the death penalty," because "`The Witherspoon-Witt voir dire seeks to determine only the views of the prospective jurors about capital punishment in the abstract. . . . The inquiry is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an "open mind" on the penalty determination.'"
People v. Valdez
32 Cal.4th 73 (Cal. 2004) Cited 1,355 times
Rejecting claim of prosecutorial misconduct where witness testified that he obtained a picture of the defendant for a photo lineup when he "went to the jail and found a mug photo"; holding that "an admonition would have cured any prejudice"
People v. Fuiava
53 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 2012) Cited 995 times
Holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to misconduct and civil rights lawsuits against the defendant's colleagues because the minimal relevance of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and undue consumption of time

PEOPLE v. ARMSTRONG (CRAIGEN)

54 Cited authorities

Holding that a district court's jury instructions may cure any risk of prejudice from antagonistic defenses

Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"

Noting that a certified abstract of judgment "constitutes the commitment" and serves as "the process and authority for carrying the judgment and sentence into effect"

Holding that error in the exclusion of defense evidence "on a minor or subsidiary point" as opposed to "the complete exclusion of evidence intended to establish an accuseds defense" is subject to review under Watson standard

Holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial after a prosecution witness referred to the defendants having recently been in prison, and the trial court admonished the jury as to the limited purpose for which the evidence was admitted

Holding that the "least degree of similarity" between two offenses is required to prove intent.

Rejecting claim of prosecutorial misconduct where witness testified that he obtained a picture of the defendant for a photo lineup when he "went to the jail and found a mug photo"; holding that "an admonition would have cured any prejudice"

Holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to misconduct and civil rights lawsuits against the defendant's colleagues because the minimal relevance of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and undue consumption of time