§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MENA

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

53 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,647 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  2. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,262 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  3. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,490 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  4. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,282 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

  5. Griffith v. Kentucky

    479 U.S. 314 (1987)   Cited 3,328 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that on direct review, a new constitutional rule must be applied retroactively "to all cases, state or federal"

  6. United States v. Wade

    388 U.S. 218 (1967)   Cited 8,072 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment provides the right to counsel at a postindictment lineup even though the Fifth Amendment is not implicated

  7. Stovall v. Denno

    388 U.S. 293 (1967)   Cited 5,309 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a suggestive show-up was "imperative" where it was not clear how long the person making the identification would live; she was not able to visit the jail; taking the defendant to the hospital room was the only feasible procedure; and a line-up at the police station was not possible

  8. People v. Scott

    9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 3,905 times
    Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"

  9. People v. Williams

    16 Cal.4th 153 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 2,322 times
    Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence, including testimony that the defendant led a meeting between two gangs where they planned to kill rival gang members

  10. People v. Stanley

    10 Cal.4th 764 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 2,196 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding admission of evidence of a car arson as an offense that "involved an implied threat of violence against a person"

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  12. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 119 times

    (a)Issues to be briefed and argued (1) On or after ordering review, the Supreme Court may specify the issues to be briefed and argued. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties must limit their briefs and arguments to those issues and any issues fairly included in them. (2) Notwithstanding an order specifying issues under (1), the court may, on reasonable notice, order oral argument on fewer or additional issues or on the entire cause. (b)Issues to be decided (1) The Supreme Court may decide