§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DOWL

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

8 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Mower

    28 Cal.4th 457 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 479 times
    Rejecting contention that the Compassionate Use Act grants immunity from arrest and would require reversal of a conviction for possession or cultivation of marijuana whenever law enforcement officers fail to adequately investigate the defendant's status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver prior to arrest

  2. People v. Cuevas

    12 Cal.4th 252 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 526 times
    Holding that the sufficiency of an out-of-court identification to support a conviction should be determined under the substantial evidence test

  3. Mann v. Cracchiolo

    38 Cal.3d 18 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 268 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Reversing summary judgment

  4. People v. Gould

    54 Cal.2d 621 (Cal. 1960)   Cited 236 times
    In Gould, supra, 54 Cal.2d 621, a burglary victim testified at trial that she was unable to positively identify the two defendants as the burglars of her home.

  5. Brown v. Colm

    11 Cal.3d 639 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 111 times
    Noting standard of care "is ordinarily provided by another physician; however, "there is no question that a professional physician may rely upon medical books as the basis for his testimony

  6. People v. Chakos

    158 Cal.App.4th 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 35 times
    In Chakos, the Court of Appeal held that, under Hunt, when a defendant offers evidence he lawfully possessed marijuana for medical purposes, a police officer's opinion testimony that the defendant possessed the marijuana for sale does not constitute substantial evidence to convict unless the officer has "expertise in distinguishing lawful patterns of possession from unlawful patterns of holding for sale."

  7. People v. Hunt

    4 Cal.3d 231 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 84 times
    In Hunt, an officer found the defendant with, among other things, pharmacy-labeled vials of methedrine with the defendant's name on them. (Hunt, supra, 4 Cal.3d at pp. 233-234.)

  8. Di Carlo v. United States

    6 F.2d 364 (2d Cir. 1925)   Cited 229 times
    In DiCarlo v. United States, 2 Cir., 6 F.2d 364, 366, certiorari denied 268 U.S. 706, 45 S.Ct. 640, 69 L.Ed. 1168, a majority of this court refused to pass on the question whether such prior consistent identifications were admissible although admitting that a majority of the decided cases apparently held that they were not. There is other authority that similar testimony is admissible which we think states the better rule.