§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SMITH

Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

15 Cited authorities

  1. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,659 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts conducting review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction should view the "evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution"

  2. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,648 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

  3. People v. Prettyman

    14 Cal.4th 248 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,108 times
    Holding that CALJIC 3.01 and 3.02 which the judge also gave at Solis' trial "[do] not withdraw an element from the jury's determination or otherwise interject an impermissible presumption into the deliberative process"

  4. People v. Beeman

    35 Cal.3d 547 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 1,217 times
    Holding that defendant is liable under aiding and abetting theory if he "act[ed] with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense"

  5. 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"

  6. People v. Favor

    54 Cal.4th 868 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 233 times
    Acknowledging distinction between principal and perpetrator under California criminal law

  7. People v. Woods

    8 Cal.App.4th 1570 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 242 times
    Holding "an aider and abetter may be found guilty of a lesser crime or lesser degree of crime than the ultimate offense the perpetrator is found to have committed"

  8. People v. Lucas

    55 Cal.App.4th 721 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 142 times
    Holding it may not

  9. Keeler v. Superior Court

    2 Cal.3d 619 (Cal. 1970)   Cited 292 times
    In Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 619, 470 P.2d 617, the California Supreme Court held in 1970 that the California murder statute did not cover the killing of an unborn fetus, even though the fetus be "viable," and that it was beyond judicial power to extend the statute to the killing of an unborn.

  10. People v. Laster

    52 Cal.App.4th 1450 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that the jury could conclude that defendant aided and abetted murder if it had concluded that defendant aided and abetted in the target offense of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle because defendant could have foreseen murder under the circumstances

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

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 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