34 Cited authorities

People v. Breverman
19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) Cited 3,865 times
Holding that the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone subject only to state standards of reversibility
People v. Watson
46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) Cited 13,669 times
Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error
People v. Marshall
15 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997) Cited 1,351 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding a trial court may give a requested instruction "if it is supported by substantial evidence"
People v. Reed
38 Cal.4th 1224 (Cal. 2006) Cited 919 times
Holding that only the elements test, and not the accusative pleading test, is appropriate for determining what qualifies as a lesser included offense
People v. Memro
11 Cal.4th 786 (Cal. 1995) Cited 1,119 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that prosecutor's comment to jury during sentencing that life imprisonment without parole was "'legally not worse' than death was accurate as alegal matter, whatever philosophical feelings individuals might have on the subject'" (citing Bloom, 48 Cal.3d at 1223 n. 7)
People v. Birks
19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998) Cited 991 times
Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge
People v. Pinholster
1 Cal.4th 865 (Cal. 1992) Cited 644 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that insubstantial omissions in the record do not implicate constitutional protections
People v. Martinez
11 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1995) Cited 550 times
Holding that a lewd or lascivious action under § 288 can occur through a victim's clothing
People v. Colantuono
7 Cal.4th 206 (Cal. 1994) Cited 448 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing that although, under the California assault statute, the defendant “must intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious consequences, the prosecution need not prove a specific intent to inflict a particular harm”
People v. Wickersham
32 Cal.3d 307 (Cal. 1982) Cited 640 times
In Wickersham itself, there was no evidence of provocation except for the victim grabbing a nearby gun immediately before the killing.

PEOPLE v. SHOCKLEY

34 Cited authorities

Holding that the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone subject only to state standards of reversibility

Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

Finding a trial court may give a requested instruction "if it is supported by substantial evidence"

Holding that only the elements test, and not the accusative pleading test, is appropriate for determining what qualifies as a lesser included offense

Holding that prosecutor's comment to jury during sentencing that life imprisonment without parole was "'legally not worse' than death was accurate as alegal matter, whatever philosophical feelings individuals might have on the subject'" (citing Bloom, 48 Cal.3d at 1223 n. 7)

Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge

Holding that insubstantial omissions in the record do not implicate constitutional protections

Holding that a lewd or lascivious action under § 288 can occur through a victim's clothing

Providing that although, under the California assault statute, the defendant “must intentionally engage in conduct that will likely produce injurious consequences, the prosecution need not prove a specific intent to inflict a particular harm”

In Wickersham itself, there was no evidence of provocation except for the victim grabbing a nearby gun immediately before the killing.