§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DELGADO

Appellant's Opening Brief on the Merits

20 Cited authorities

  1. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,952 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

  2. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,494 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,648 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

  4. United States v. Gaudin

    515 U.S. 506 (1995)   Cited 1,658 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury must decide whether a false statement under § 1001 is "material"

  5. The People v. McCoy

    25 Cal.4th 1111 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,111 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”

  6. People v. Flood

    18 Cal.4th 470 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 1,060 times
    Concluding that harmless error analysis rather than automatic reversal is required where jury instruction removed an element from jury consideration because, among other things, the element was established by "overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence"

  7. People v. Cummings

    4 Cal.4th 1233 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 916 times
    Holding that in a murder trial, the lower court prejudicially admitted into evidence the separate conviction of a codefendant's wife as an accessory to murder and robbery under Evidence Code section 352

  8. People v. French

    43 Cal.4th 36 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 523 times
    In French, the defendant pleaded no contest to six counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of fourteen pursuant to a plea agreement in which he was to receive no more than eighteen years in prison.

  9. People v. Rayford

    9 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 505 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In People v. Rayford (1994) 9 Cal.4th 1 (hereafter Rayford), which concerned aggravated kidnapping to commit a robbery, the California Supreme Court addressed the requisite standard of asportation for the substantive offense of aggravated kidnapping.

  10. People v. Epps

    25 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 292 times
    Recognizing statutory right to jury trial on whether prior conviction occurred under §§ 1025 & 1158

  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or