§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. SMITH

Appellant’s Petition for Review

102 Cited authorities

  1. Strickland v. Washington

    466 U.S. 668 (1984)   Cited 159,085 times   176 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "error by counsel" doesn't "warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding" where in the context of the whole proceeding the identified error "had no effect on the judgment"

  2. Jackson v. Virginia

    443 U.S. 307 (1979)   Cited 77,726 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"

  3. Kyles v. Whitley

    514 U.S. 419 (1995)   Cited 7,277 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Holding the State's disclosure obligation turns on the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence favorable to the defense

  4. Brady v. Maryland

    373 U.S. 83 (1963)   Cited 43,539 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the prosecution violates due process when it suppresses material, favorable evidence

  5. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,956 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

  6. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,519 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  7. Darden v. Wainwright

    477 U.S. 168 (1986)   Cited 6,579 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding comments casting the death penalty as the only guarantee against future similar acts do not deprive the defendant of a fair trial as long as they "d[o] not manipulate or misstate the evidence"

  8. In re Winship

    397 U.S. 358 (1970)   Cited 11,656 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt

  9. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,285 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

  10. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo

    416 U.S. 637 (1974)   Cited 6,222 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, because a prosecutor's statement during closing argument was ambiguous, it was not so misleading and prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of due process

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,524 times
    Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

  12. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,778 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  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)