47 Cited authorities

  1. In re Tobacco II Cases

    46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 1,024 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
  2. People v. Osband

    13 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,511 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
  3. People v. Williams

    16 Cal.4th 153 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 1,403 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
  4. People v. Hughes

    27 Cal.4th 287 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 987 times
    Finding no reversible error where defense counsel was able to "emphasize and 'pinpoint' " the defense theory under the given instructions
  5. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 3,481 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California trial court is bound by decisions of state supreme court and courts of appeal
  6. People v. Anderson

    51 Cal.4th 989 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 437 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
  7. People v. Latimer

    5 Cal.4th 1203 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 729 times
    Finding single objectives for kidnapping and rape even though “[i]t could be argued that defendant had two intents”
  8. People v. Davis

    10 Cal.4th 463 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 682 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"
  9. People v. Dillon

    34 Cal.3d 441 (Cal. 1983)   Cited 1,006 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."
  10. People v. Green

    27 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1980)   Cited 1,091 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
  11. Rule 4.425 - Factors affecting concurrent or consecutive sentences

    Cal. R. 4.425   Cited 370 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

  12. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 238 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