§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. WYATT

Respondent’s Petition for Review

25 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,311 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

  2. Harmelin v. Michigan

    501 U.S. 957 (1991)   Cited 4,863 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sentencing court not required to consider mitigating sentencing factors before imposing mandatory life sentence

  3. People v. Breverman

    19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,870 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

  4. People v. Hughes

    27 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,586 times
    Finding no reversible error where defense counsel was able to "emphasize and 'pinpoint' " the defense theory under the given instructions

  5. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13,694 times
    Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

  6. People v. Koontz

    27 Cal.4th 1041 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,235 times
    Finding manner of killing to support premeditation and deliberation where defendant shot at a vital area (i.e., the abdomen) of the victim's body at close range and then prevented witness from calling an ambulance for victim

  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

  8. People v. Williams

    26 Cal.4th 779 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 690 times
    Holding that assault does not require a specific intent to cause injury or a subjective awareness of the risk that an injury might occur

  9. People v. Elliot

    37 Cal.4th 453 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 500 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Elliot, defendant was convicted of the torture-murder of a bartender after the bar had closed; he was also convicted of felony murder based on evidence that he "ambushed [the victim] after she closed the bar, forced her at knifepoint into the back room, and then inflicted fatal wounds as part of the attempted robbery."

  10. People v. Lopez

    19 Cal.4th 282 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 579 times
    Ruling that § 647.6, subd. is not an LIO offense of a nonforcible lewd touching under § 288, subd.

  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