§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MILLS

Appellant’s Request for Judicial Notice

10 Cited authorities

  1. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,488 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  2. Francis v. Franklin

    471 U.S. 307 (1985)   Cited 2,057 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding a mandatory presumption, either conclusive or rebuttable, as to an element violates a defendant's due process rights because it conflicts with the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged

  3. People v. Morales

    25 Cal.4th 34 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 913 times
    Recognizing that jury instructions and accompanying bench notes are not law

  4. Price v. Superior Court (People)

    25 Cal.4th 1046 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 861 times
    Having district attorney testify why he offered witness immunity “may well raise” a meritorious vouching claim

  5. People v. Coddington

    23 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 611 times
    Holding multiple-murder special circumstance constitutional

  6. Kelly v. South Carolina

    534 U.S. 246 (2002)   Cited 173 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a capital defendant is entitled to rebut future dangerousness even it is merely implied by the evidence presented at trial, rather than explicitly argued

  7. People v. Croy

    41 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1985)   Cited 252 times
    In People v. Croy, supra, 41 Cal.3d 1, we set forth the principles of the "natural and probable consequences" doctrine as applied to aiders and abettors: "[An aider and abettor] is guilty not only of the offense he intended to facilitate or encourage, but also of any reasonably foreseeable offense committed by the person he aids and abets.... [¶] It follows that a defendant whose liability is predicated on his status as an aider and abettor need not have intended to encourage or facilitate the particular offense ultimately committed by the perpetrator.

  8. People v. Roder

    33 Cal.3d 491 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 101 times
    Holding statutory presumption permissive but instruction applied an unconstitutional mandatory presumption

  9. Patterson v. Gomez

    223 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 39 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "if a jury is instructed that a defendant must be presumed 'sane' . . . a reasonable juror could well conclude that he or she must presume that the defendant had no . . . mental disease, defect, or disorder"

  10. Stark v. Hickman

    No. C 02-290 MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2003)

    No. C 02-290 MMC October 21, 2003 ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge Before the Court is Thomas Lester Stark's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In response to the Court's order to show cause why the petition should not be granted, respondent Roderick Hickman filed an answer and a memorandum in support thereof, to which petitioner replied by filing a traverse. Having reviewed the papers filed in support and in opposition