36 Cited authorities

  1. Smith v. Phillips

    455 U.S. 209 (1982)   Cited 4,222 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a juror's pending job application with the prosecutor's office required a post-trial hearing on juror bias
  2. Irvin v. Dowd

    366 U.S. 717 (1961)   Cited 3,384 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that juror bias is a “mixed [question of] law and fact” and that therefore the federal habeas court must “independently evaluate the voir dire testimony”
  3. Griffin v. United States

    502 U.S. 46 (1991)   Cited 986 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that refusal to remove an insufficiently supported theory from the jury's consideration does not provide an independent basis for reversing an otherwise valid conviction
  4. People v. Hughes

    27 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 971 times
    Upholding a first-degree burglary conviction for a defendant who robbed, sexually assaulted, and murdered his victim in her home
  5. People v. Thomas

    53 Cal.4th 771 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 464 times
    In Thomas, the Court of Appeal held it was federal constitutional error for the trial court to refuse to give a requested instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on provocation where there was substantial evidence of provocation; this was because the prosecution was required "to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt by proving that sufficient provocation was lacking."
  6. People v. Merriman

    60 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2014)   Cited 392 times
    In Merriman, supra, 60 Cal.4th at page 40, the California Supreme Court stated: "We need not resolve the parties' debate concerning whether the evidence supporting the sexual assault crime[] was sufficiently similar to the evidence underlying the murder charge to permit admission under Evidence Code section 1101(b) to prove intent, common plan, or identity in a separate trial on the murder count.
  7. People v. Guiton

    4 Cal.4th 1116 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 696 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that one basis for a conviction is factually insufficient does not require reversal as long as there is a factually sufficient basis for the jury's verdict
  8. People v. Ray

    13 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 455 times
    In People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 337 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846], we stated that "not all statements obtained by the police from a suspect who is incarcerated or otherwise confined are the product of interrogation.
  9. Ghirardo v. Antonioli

    8 Cal.4th 791 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 473 times
    Determining that whether a particular transaction was a loan subject to usury law or an exempt transaction of a different character was a question of law
  10. People v. Harris

    43 Cal.4th 1269 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 311 times
    In People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 185 P.3d 727] (Harris), as in this case, the defendant argued it was error to instruct the jury on first degree murder because the information charged him only with murder in violation of section 187, subdivision (a), which Harris characterized as a statute defining second degree murder.
  11. Section 1181

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1181   Cited 520 times

    When a verdict has been rendered or a finding made against the defendant, the court may, upon his application, grant a new trial, in the following cases only: 1.When the trial has been had in his absence except in cases where the trial may lawfully proceed in his absence; 2. When the jury has received any evidence out of court, other than that resulting from a view of the premises, or of personal property; 3. When the jury has separated without leave of the court after retiring to deliberate upon