15 Cited authorities

Neder v. United States
527 U.S. 1 (1999) Cited 4,947 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless
Chapman v. California
386 U.S. 18 (1967) Cited 23,483 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"
Gilbert v. California
388 U.S. 263 (1967) Cited 3,085 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he taking of [handwriting] exemplars did not violate petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination"
The People v. McCoy
25 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,108 times
Recognizing that “[w]hen two or more persons commit a crime together, both may act in part as the actual perpetrator and in part as the aider and abettor of the other, who also acts in part as an actual perpetrator”
People v. Guiton
4 Cal.4th 1116 (Cal. 1993) Cited 1,039 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding different standards of review apply depending on whether a theory of guilt is legally or factually insufficient
People v. Roberts
2 Cal.4th 271 (Cal. 1992) Cited 388 times
Concluding that the record and the jury's "careful consideration of its penalty verdict" demonstrated that the defendant received an individualized determination of culpability
People v. Cervantes
26 Cal.4th 860 (Cal. 2001) Cited 188 times
In People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, our Supreme Court discussed what constitutes an intervening, superseding cause.
People v. Concha
47 Cal.4th 653 (Cal. 2009) Cited 110 times
In Concha, two codefendants and an accomplice tried to murder a man during an apparent robbery, and the man responded by killing the accomplice.
People v. Washington
62 Cal.2d 777 (Cal. 1965) Cited 272 times
Rejecting a distinction between the death of an accomplice and the death of an innocent person
People v. Antick
15 Cal.3d 79 (Cal. 1975) Cited 175 times
In People v. Antick (1975) 15 Cal.3d 79 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 475, 539 P.2d 43], we held that one robber cannot be vicariously liable for the death of an accomplice due to the deceased robber's actions because people cannot murder themselves.

PEOPLE v. GONZALEZ

15 Cited authorities

Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

Holding that "[t]he taking of [handwriting] exemplars did not violate petitioner's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination"

Recognizing that “[w]hen two or more persons commit a crime together, both may act in part as the actual perpetrator and in part as the aider and abettor of the other, who also acts in part as an actual perpetrator”

Holding different standards of review apply depending on whether a theory of guilt is legally or factually insufficient

Concluding that the record and the jury's "careful consideration of its penalty verdict" demonstrated that the defendant received an individualized determination of culpability

In People v. Cervantes (2001) 26 Cal.4th 860, our Supreme Court discussed what constitutes an intervening, superseding cause.

In Concha, two codefendants and an accomplice tried to murder a man during an apparent robbery, and the man responded by killing the accomplice.

Rejecting a distinction between the death of an accomplice and the death of an innocent person

In People v. Antick (1975) 15 Cal.3d 79 [ 123 Cal.Rptr. 475, 539 P.2d 43], we held that one robber cannot be vicariously liable for the death of an accomplice due to the deceased robber's actions because people cannot murder themselves.