28 Cited authorities

Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.
473 U.S. 479 (1985) Cited 4,219 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact that a statute can be "applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth."
Salinas v. United States
522 U.S. 52 (1997) Cited 1,207 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the canon of construction requiring a clear statement to alter the federal-state balance of criminal jurisdiction "does not warrant a departure from terms" where the statute's "text . . . is unambiguous on the point under consideration"
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) Cited 6,199 times
Holding that trial courts may dismiss prior convictions alleged under the Three Strikes Law
People v. Albillar
51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,665 times
Holding that "if substantial evidence establishes that the defendant intended to and did commit the charged felony with known members of a gang, the jury may fairly infer that the defendant had the specific intent to promote, further, or assist criminal conduct by those gang members"
Iannelli v. United States
420 U.S. 770 (1975) Cited 1,201 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the conspiratorial agreement may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including the acts and conduct of the coconspirators and the inferences that may be drawn from their acts
People v. Rodriguez
55 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2012) Cited 518 times
Discussing CPC § 186.22
People v. Mesa
54 Cal.4th 191 (Cal. 2012) Cited 351 times
Rejecting argument "that multiple punishment is permitted under section 654 because the shootings harmed both the individual victims and the entire community," pursuant to rule that "section 654 does not apply to crimes of violence against multiple victims"
People v. Castenada
23 Cal.4th 743 (Cal. 2000) Cited 440 times
Finding that legislature's wording of "actively participates," as contained in Cal. Penal Code § 186.22, is not void for vagueness
People v. Avery
27 Cal.4th 49 (Cal. 2002) Cited 376 times
Allowing courts to look to the entire record of conviction to determine whether the out-of-state conduct constitutes a "serious felony" under Three Strikes
Horwich v. Superior Court
21 Cal.4th 272 (Cal. 1999) Cited 216 times 3 Legal Analyses
Declining to resolve ambiguity in Proposition 213 by looking to "matters were not directly presented to the voters"
Section 1962 - Prohibited activities
18 U.S.C. § 1962 Cited 15,836 times 59 Legal Analyses
Specifying prohibited activities
Section 15
Cal. Const. art. I § 15 Cited 3,311 times
Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”
Section 7
Cal. Const. art. I § 7 Cited 2,107 times 5 Legal Analyses
Guaranteeing due process and equal protection
Section 16
Cal. Const. art. I § 16 Cited 1,774 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"
Section 1
Cal. Const. art. I § 1 Cited 1,056 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"

PEOPLE v. JOHNSON

28 Cited authorities

Holding that the fact that a statute can be "applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth."

Holding that the canon of construction requiring a clear statement to alter the federal-state balance of criminal jurisdiction "does not warrant a departure from terms" where the statute's "text . . . is unambiguous on the point under consideration"

Holding that trial courts may dismiss prior convictions alleged under the Three Strikes Law

Holding that "if substantial evidence establishes that the defendant intended to and did commit the charged felony with known members of a gang, the jury may fairly infer that the defendant had the specific intent to promote, further, or assist criminal conduct by those gang members"

Holding that the conspiratorial agreement may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including the acts and conduct of the coconspirators and the inferences that may be drawn from their acts

Discussing CPC § 186.22

Rejecting argument "that multiple punishment is permitted under section 654 because the shootings harmed both the individual victims and the entire community," pursuant to rule that "section 654 does not apply to crimes of violence against multiple victims"

Finding that legislature's wording of "actively participates," as contained in Cal. Penal Code § 186.22, is not void for vagueness

Allowing courts to look to the entire record of conviction to determine whether the out-of-state conduct constitutes a "serious felony" under Three Strikes

Declining to resolve ambiguity in Proposition 213 by looking to "matters were not directly presented to the voters"

Specifying prohibited activities

Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

Guaranteeing due process and equal protection

Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

Providing "[a]ll people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights," including the right of "privacy"