27 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. Rodrigues
8 Cal.4th 1060 (Cal. 1994) Cited 2,434 times
Holding that the court's instructions as a whole properly guided the jury's consideration of the evidence because CALJIC No. 8.20 "adequately expressed the need for joint operation of act and intent [for first-degree murder]"
People v. Williams
49 Cal.4th 405 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,038 times
Holding that "the suggestions made by the interrogating officers that defendant may not have been the actual killer, or may not have intended that the victim die" were a permissible interrogation tactic
People v. Mayfield
14 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1997) Cited 1,313 times
Concluding defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to present certain potentially exculpatory evidence where "counsel's decision not to elicit this evidence was a reasonable tactical decision"
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. 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. Blakeley
23 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2000) Cited 744 times
Finding that under circumstances in which defendant testified "the gun just went off," jury could have properly found "the death was the result of the failure to exercise proper care under the circumstances" and thus supported conviction for involuntary manslaughter
People v. Alvarez
27 Cal.4th 1161 (Cal. 2002) Cited 483 times
Holding that California's corpus delicti rule does not restrict the admissibility of incriminatory extrajudicial statements by the accused
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
Rule 8.1110 - Partial publication
Cal. R. 8.1110 Cited 2,324 times
(a)Order for partial publication A majority of the rendering court may certify for publication any part of an opinion meeting a standard for publication under rule 8.1105. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Opinion contents The published part of the opinion must specify the part or parts not certified for publication. All material, factual and legal, including the disposition, that aids in the application or interpretation of the published part must be published. (c) Construction For
Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions
Cal. R. 8.1105 Cited 2,085 times
(a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion
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

PEOPLE v. SHOCKLEY

27 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 the court's instructions as a whole properly guided the jury's consideration of the evidence because CALJIC No. 8.20 "adequately expressed the need for joint operation of act and intent [for first-degree murder]"

Holding that "the suggestions made by the interrogating officers that defendant may not have been the actual killer, or may not have intended that the victim die" were a permissible interrogation tactic

Concluding defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to present certain potentially exculpatory evidence where "counsel's decision not to elicit this evidence was a reasonable tactical decision"

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

Finding that under circumstances in which defendant testified "the gun just went off," jury could have properly found "the death was the result of the failure to exercise proper care under the circumstances" and thus supported conviction for involuntary manslaughter

Holding that California's corpus delicti rule does not restrict the admissibility of incriminatory extrajudicial statements by the accused

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