§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. DAVIS

Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

23 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,874 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

  2. People v. Boyer

    38 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 1,089 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting argument that request for limiting instruction would have been futile where trial court appeared to have accepted prosecutors argument that evidence was admissible for all purposes because "defendant was not prevented from contradicting the prosecutors view and proposing a more limited instruction"

  3. People v. McAlpin

    53 Cal.3d 1289 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 696 times
    Holding that character witnesses should have been permitted to testify to opinion that defendant was not "a person given to lewd conduct with children" and that he had a reputation for "normalcy in his sexual tastes," which included not having "a reputation for being sexually attracted to young girls"

  4. People v. Clark

    5 Cal.4th 950 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 452 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding cross-examination about the "scholarly work" of another expert to be proper

  5. People v. Thompson

    38 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 190 times
    Holding that officers' lack of certainty that the defendant was the driver did not preclude a finding of probable cause where an eyewitness gave a vague description of the suspect but the car was traced to a particular address where a man matching the description attempted to flee from the house when the police arrived

  6. People v. Morse

    60 Cal.2d 631 (Cal. 1964)   Cited 438 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding defendant was prejudiced by dismissal of juror who disclosed she opposed verdict imposing death penalty and was considering probability of life sentence because her dismissal was tantamount to loading jury with those who might favor death penalty

  7. People v. Kelly

    154 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 91 times
    In People v. Kelly (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 961, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 104 (Kelly), Division Three of this Court considered whether a sling shot and a box cutter could be considered instruments or tools within the meaning of section 466. (Kelly, at p. 963, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 104.)

  8. Allen v. Sully-Miller Contracting Co.

    28 Cal.4th 222 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 66 times

    S088829 Filed June 13, 2002 Appeal from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, No. BC 166 964, Reginald A. Dunn, Judge. Ct.App. 2/7 B127946, 80 Cal.App.4th 245, Law Offices of Greg W. Garrotto and Greg W. Garrotto for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kirtland Packard and Robert A. Muhlbach for Defendant and Respondent. BAXTER, J. Civil Code section 3333.4 (section 3333.4) was enacted through passage of Proposition 213 in the November 5, 1996 General Election. Known as "The Personal Responsibility Act of

  9. United States v. Ching Tang Lo

    447 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 54 times
    Finding that a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c) did not require knowledge that the substance was a listed chemical, because the mens rea requirement that the defendant knowingly possessed or distributed the chemical was sufficient to ensure that "apparently innocent conduct is not criminalized"

  10. Bardessono v. Michels

    3 Cal.3d 780 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 105 times
    Observing that "the giving and receiving of injections and the lack of nerve injury therefrom ordinarily has become a matter of common knowledge"

  11. Section 841 - Prohibited acts A

    21 U.S.C. § 841   Cited 90,875 times   147 Legal Analyses
    In § 841 prosecutions, then, it is the fact that the doctor issued an unauthorized prescription that renders his or her conduct wrongful, not the fact of the dispensation itself.