55 Cited authorities

Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (1979) Cited 77,657 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"
Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,951 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
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"
In re Winship
397 U.S. 358 (1970) Cited 11,648 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Gregg v. Georgia
428 U.S. 153 (1976) Cited 6,625 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"
Payne v. Tennessee
501 U.S. 808 (1991) Cited 2,612 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment
P1eople. v. Hill
17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998) Cited 3,802 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"
Maynard v. Cartwright
486 U.S. 356 (1988) Cited 1,136 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that Oklahoma's "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague
Booth v. Maryland
482 U.S. 496 (1987) Cited 1,112 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Constitution prohibits a jury from considering victim impact statements during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial
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"

PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (BILLY JOE)

55 Cited authorities

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"

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

Holding that "accurate sentencing information is an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die"

Holding that admission of victim impact evidence at death penalty sentencing phase does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment

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"

Holding that Oklahoma's "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague

Holding that the Constitution prohibits a jury from considering victim impact statements during the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial

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"