§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. ARANDA

Appellant's Petition for Review

22 Cited authorities

  1. Baldwin v. Reese

    541 U.S. 27 (2004)   Cited 5,805 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "ordinarily a state prisoner does not ‘fairly present’ a claim to a state court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief (or a similar document) that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim in order to find material ... that does so"

  2. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,461 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 3,276 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. Victor v. Nebraska

    511 U.S. 1 (1994)   Cited 1,746 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government's burden of proof," so long as the instructions taken as a whole correctly convey the concept of "reasonable doubt"

  5. Taylor v. Kentucky

    436 U.S. 478 (1978)   Cited 777 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that trial court's failure to give requested instruction on presumption of innocence resulted in violation of defendant's right to a fair trial

  6. People v. Michaels

    28 Cal.4th 486 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 477 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding court's refusal to accept defendant's guilty plea because Cal. Penal Code § 969.5 specifically authorizes amendment of a complaint to charge prior felony convictions after a guilty plea

  7. People v. Stewart

    33 Cal.4th 425 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 434 times
    Finding error where trial court acted without the parties' prior agreement in granting several prosecution challenges for cause solely on the basis of the questionnaire responses, despite earlier assurances that it would conduct further oral voir dire to address any ambiguous responses and despite the defendant's repeated objections to the procedure

  8. Kentucky v. Whorton

    441 U.S. 786 (1979)   Cited 249 times
    Holding that failure to instruct the jury on the presumption of innocence is an error subject to harmless error analysis

  9. People v. Maurer

    32 Cal.App.4th 1121 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that not excluding Cal. Penal Code § 647.6 (misdemeanor child annoyance) from a CALJIC 2.51 motive instruction was error

  10. Government of Virgin Islands v. Smith

    615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1980)   Cited 252 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that prosecutorial misconduct justified a court's ordering the prosecutor to grant statutory immunity and that a witness capable of producing "clearly exculpatory evidence" when the government can present no "strong countervailing systemic interest" justified a court ordering nonstatutory, judicial immunity

  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 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)