§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. THOMAS

Respondent's Petition for Review

13 Cited authorities

  1. Arizona v. Fulminante

    499 U.S. 279 (1991)   Cited 5,281 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that involuntary confessions are subject to harmless-error review

  2. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13,674 times
    Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

  3. People v. Letner and Tobin

    50 Cal.4th 99 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 892 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding trial court need not instruct that felony-murder special circumstance requires the actual killer to be a major participant in the felony who acted with reckless disregard of human life

  4. People v. Posey

    32 Cal.4th 193 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 902 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that venue is a question of law for the court to determine, and overruling previous authority that venue is a question of fact for the jury

  5. People v. Gutierrez

    28 Cal.4th 1083 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 824 times
    Holding that a prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer was admissible to impeach a defendant charged with attempted murder of a police officer

  6. People v. Carrington

    47 Cal.4th 145 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 566 times
    Holding that it did not matter whether the defendant took preparatory acts with intent to commit the target offense for purposes of venue under Section 781

  7. People v. Morante

    20 Cal.4th 403 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 390 times
    In Morante, the court noted that "[i]t is well established that one may become criminally liable for possession for sale or for transportation of a controlled substance, based upon either actual or constructive possession of the substance.

  8. People v. Betts

    34 Cal.4th 1039 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 99 times
    Determining that territorial jurisdiction is a procedural matter and that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial on facts relating to jurisdiction

  9. Armstrong v. Superior Court

    217 Cal.App.3d 535 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 47 times
    In Armstrong v. Superior Court, 217 Cal. App.3d 535, 265 Cal.Rptr. 877 (1990), the California Court of Appeal found no constructive possession when the defendant "entered into and fulfilled all terms of an agreement to purchase the contraband from government agents."

  10. People v. Bismillah

    208 Cal.App.3d 80 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 18 times

    Docket No. A042895. February 28, 1989. Appeal from Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 125285, Jack K. Berman, Judge. COUNSEL John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Steve White, Chief Assistant Attorney General, John H. Sugiyama, Assistant Attorney General, Aileen Bunney and David D. Salmon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Harvey E. Goldfine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION ANDERSON, P.J. On December 18

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,508 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