§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. ELMORE

Appellant’s Petition for Review

17 Cited authorities

  1. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,494 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  2. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13,697 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. In re Christian S

    7 Cal.4th 768 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 785 times
    Holding that 1981 amendment did not eliminate imperfect self-defense

  4. People v. Saille

    54 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 653 times
    Recognizing abolition of diminished capacity defense in California

  5. People v. Flannel

    25 Cal.3d 668 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 977 times
    Abrogating Sedeno's requirement that jury instructions must be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak

  6. People v. Mentch

    45 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 151 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting expansive definition of “ ‘caretaker’ ” under the CUA

  7. People v. Petznick

    114 Cal.App.4th 663 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 161 times
    Reversing conviction on appeal because the "use of the indefinite article [as it related to the intent element of torture murder] was emphasized both orally and in writing"

  8. People v. Hernandez

    22 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 142 times
    Holding sanity proceedings do not constitute an "action" or part thereof for purposes of section 1385, subdivision

  9. People v. Padilla

    103 Cal.App.4th 675 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 131 times
    Holding defendant entitled to argue provocation as defense to first degree murder where he killed his cellmate after hallucinating that cellmate had killed defendant's family, even though it was objectively unreasonable to believe that cellmate killed his family

  10. In re Bower

    38 Cal.3d 865 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that "the due process prohibition against prosecutorial vindictiveness bars the People from increasing the severity of the potential charges against [a defendant] after he moved for a mistrial"

  11. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,846 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary

  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

  13. 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)