§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. EROSHEVICH

Respondent, Howard K. Stern, Answer to Petition for Review

17 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Wilson

    420 U.S. 332 (1975)   Cited 911 times
    Holding that the underlying premise of double jeopardy was "that a defendant should not be twice tried or punished for the same offense"

  2. Evans v. Michigan

    568 U.S. 313 (2013)   Cited 227 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the trial court's erroneous ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of an alleged element of the crime at defendant's trial that it was not, in fact, required to prove was not subject to appellate review

  3. People v. Jurado

    38 Cal.4th 72 (Cal. 2006)   Cited 649 times
    Finding no error in the admission of testimony concerning relatives' visits to the victim's gravesite

  4. Porter v. Superior Court (People)

    47 Cal.4th 125 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 169 times
    Noting rejection of "the notion that the high court's 'functional equivalent' statement [in Apprendi] requires us to treat penalty allegations as if they were actual elements of offenses for all purposes under state law"

  5. United States v. Smith

    331 U.S. 469 (1947)   Cited 275 times
    Holding that Rule 33's time limitations cabin the district courts' power to grant a new trial

  6. People v. Urziceanu

    132 Cal.App.4th 747 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 145 times
    Finding that section 11362.775 represents “a dramatic change in the prohibitions on the use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana for persons who are qualified patients or primary caregivers.... Its specific itemization of the marijuana sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana”

  7. People v. Meneses

    165 Cal.App.4th 1648 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 70 times
    In Meneses, the defendants were convicted of multiple counts of conspiracy based on a scheme to defraud insurance companies by encouraging accident victims to obtain legal and medical services even when none were needed.

  8. People v. Salgado

    88 Cal.App.4th 5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 55 times
    In Salgado, the trial court sua sponte granted a motion for new trial on one count, then immediately dismissed the count.

  9. People v. Marsh

    58 Cal.2d 732 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 111 times
    Focusing on intent to commit a crime where there was clear evidence of intent to agree

  10. U.S. v. Alvakez-Moreno

    657 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that while Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.3 "does not state explicitly that a mistrial can be declared only before a verdict is rendered or a judgment entered, but that limitation is clearly the implicit assumption."

  11. 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

  12. Rule 8.1125 - Requesting depublication of published opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1125   Cited 206 times

    (a) Request (1) Any person may request the Supreme Court to order that an opinion certified for publication not be published. (2) The request must not be made as part of a petition for review, but by a separate letter to the Supreme Court not exceeding 10 pages. (3) The request must concisely state the person's interest and the reason why the opinion should not be published. (4) The request must be delivered to the Supreme Court within 30 days after the decision is final in the Court of Appeal. (5)

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)