48 Cited authorities

People v. Osband
13 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 1996) Cited 2,628 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defendant received more than he was entitled to when the jury was instructed on the "specific intent" to commit the underlying felony of rape
People v. Williams
16 Cal.4th 153 (Cal. 1997) Cited 2,322 times
Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence, including testimony that the defendant led a meeting between two gangs where they planned to kill rival gang members
In re Tobacco II Cases
46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,203 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied
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
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962) Cited 5,915 times 8 Legal Analyses
Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"
People v. Latimer
5 Cal.4th 1203 (Cal. 1993) Cited 1,246 times
Finding single objectives for kidnapping and rape even though “[i]t could be argued that defendant had two intents”
People v. Davis
10 Cal.4th 463 (Cal. 1995) Cited 1,121 times
Finding no substantial evidence of incompetence and noting the "[d]efendant's refusal to sit at the counsel table did not evince incompetence or lack of ability to participate meaningfully in the proceedings" because "[h]is explanation for avoiding the counsel table was rational and coherent"
People v. Dillon
34 Cal.3d 441 (Cal. 1983) Cited 1,435 times
Holding that first degree felony murder includes "a variety of unintended homicides resulting from reckless behavior, or ordinary negligence, or pure accident; it embraces both calculated conduct and acts committed in panic or rage, or under the dominion of mental illness, drugs, or alcohol; and it condemns alike consequences that are highly probable, conceivably possible, or wholly unforeseeable."
People v. Green
27 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1980) Cited 1,437 times
Holding "if the larcenous purpose does not arise until after the force has been used against the victim," defendant is not guilty of robbery
People v. Anderson
51 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2011) Cited 490 times
Finding that CPC § 211 covered scenario in which perpetrator broke into unoccupied car parked in a garage and then accidentally ran over the car's owner while leaving the garage at high speed
Rule 4.425 - Factors affecting concurrent or consecutive sentences
Cal. R. 4.425 Cited 691 times
Factors affecting the decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences include: (a)Facts relating to crimes Facts relating to the crimes, including whether or not: (1) The crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other; (2) The crimes involved separate acts of violence or threats of violence; or (3) The crimes were committed at different times or separate places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a single period of aberrant
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. WILLIAMS

48 Cited authorities

Holding error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because defendant received more than he was entitled to when the jury was instructed on the "specific intent" to commit the underlying felony of rape

Holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gang evidence, including testimony that the defendant led a meeting between two gangs where they planned to kill rival gang members

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Finding no reversible error where defense counsel was able to "emphasize and 'pinpoint' " the defense theory under the given instructions

Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

Finding single objectives for kidnapping and rape even though “[i]t could be argued that defendant had two intents”

Finding no substantial evidence of incompetence and noting the "[d]efendant's refusal to sit at the counsel table did not evince incompetence or lack of ability to participate meaningfully in the proceedings" because "[h]is explanation for avoiding the counsel table was rational and coherent"

Holding "if the larcenous purpose does not arise until after the force has been used against the victim," defendant is not guilty of robbery

Finding that CPC § 211 covered scenario in which perpetrator broke into unoccupied car parked in a garage and then accidentally ran over the car's owner while leaving the garage at high speed