§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MENA

Appellant’s Petition for Review

36 Cited authorities

  1. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,263 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  2. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,491 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. 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’ "

  4. Griffith v. Kentucky

    479 U.S. 314 (1987)   Cited 3,329 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that on direct review, a new constitutional rule must be applied retroactively "to all cases, state or federal"

  5. United States v. Wade

    388 U.S. 218 (1967)   Cited 8,074 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

  6. 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

  7. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 2,730 times
    Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement

  8. Witte v. United States

    515 U.S. 389 (1995)   Cited 908 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a crime passing the Blockburger test may be charged successively even if considered at sentencing in earlier prosecution

  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. Farnam

    28 Cal.4th 107 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,113 times
    Finding no misconduct where prosecutor referred to the defendant during opening statement as monstrous, cold-blooded, and a predator

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,516 times
    Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

  12. 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