§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. MOFFETT:

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

32 Cited authorities

  1. Miller v. Alabama

    567 U.S. 460 (2012)   Cited 6,804 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Holding mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders

  2. Graham v. Florida

    560 U.S. 48 (2010)   Cited 4,394 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

  3. Roper v. Simmons

    543 U.S. 551 (2005)   Cited 3,486 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the death penalty cannot be imposed upon juvenile offenders"

  4. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,451 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  5. Boyde v. California

    494 U.S. 370 (1990)   Cited 2,319 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Boyde's strength of character in the face of adversity was considered evidence that "excused" the gravity of the crime under factor (k)

  6. People v. Scott

    9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 3,889 times
    Holding that "complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"

  7. People v. Osband

    13 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 2,626 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

  8. Johnson v. Texas

    509 U.S. 350 (1993)   Cited 577 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury was free to consider a 19–year–old defendant's youth when determining whether there was a probability that he would continue to commit violent acts in the future and stating that “ ‘youth is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage’ ” (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982))

  9. Stringer v. Black

    503 U.S. 222 (1992)   Cited 575 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that cases invalidating use of vague aggravating factors in capital sentencing applied to Mississippi's capital sentencing law despite the fact that Mississippi used a different method of weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, and was therefore not a “new rule,” with three Justices dissenting

  10. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13,663 times
    Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 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

  12. Rule 4.423 - Circumstances in mitigation

    Cal. R. 4.423   Cited 544 times

    Circumstances in mitigation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Factors relating to the crime include that: (1) The defendant was a passive participant or played a minor role in the crime; (2) The victim was an initiator of, willing participant in, or aggressor or provoker of the incident; (3) The crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance, such as great provocation, that is unlikely to recur; (4) The defendant participated

  13. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 119 times

    (a)Issues to be briefed and argued (1) On or after ordering review, the Supreme Court may specify the issues to be briefed and argued. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties must limit their briefs and arguments to those issues and any issues fairly included in them. (2) Notwithstanding an order specifying issues under (1), the court may, on reasonable notice, order oral argument on fewer or additional issues or on the entire cause. (b)Issues to be decided (1) The Supreme Court may decide