§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE R.V.

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

17 Cited authorities

  1. Illinois v. Gates

    462 U.S. 213 (1983)   Cited 18,971 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a warrant may issue only when probable cause exists under the "totality-of-the-circumstances"

  2. Ornelas v. United States

    517 U.S. 690 (1996)   Cited 6,549 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appellate courts should review reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations de novo

  3. Thompson v. Keohane

    516 U.S. 99 (1995)   Cited 2,430 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factual determinations consist of "basic, primary, or historical facts" (quoting Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293, 309 n.6, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) )

  4. People v. Alvarez

    14 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 1,375 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the omission of CALJIC No. 3.31 with regard to the charge of murder did not require reversal because the murder instructions "substantially covered" the concept of concurrence of act and specific intent

  5. People v. Marshall

    15 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 1,352 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding a trial court may give a requested instruction "if it is supported by substantial evidence"

  6. People v. Cromer

    24 Cal.4th 889 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 749 times
    Holding that independent review standard applied to trial court's conclusion that prosecution used due diligence to locate missing witness “comports with this court's usual practice for review of mixed question determinations affecting constitutional rights”

  7. People v. Jones

    17 Cal.4th 279 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 797 times
    Finding the corpus delicti for oral copulation satisfied although there was no physical evidence on victim’s mouth because there was semen in the victim’s other orifices and "we have never interpreted the corpus delicti rule so strictly that independent evidence of every physical act constituting an element of an offense is necessary"

  8. People v. Mickey

    54 Cal.3d 612 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 783 times
    Rejecting argument that Edwards requires a suspect to initiate the meeting at which he initiates the interrogation, where the defendant had requested an interview while officers were transporting him

  9. People v. Ault

    33 Cal.4th 1250 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 421 times
    Holding that standard of review of prejudice in a case where the trial court granted a motion for new trial was abuse of discretion

  10. People v. Medina

    51 Cal.3d 870 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 399 times
    Holding that there was no error where a competent defendant first withdrew an insanity plea, then reinstated this plea against the advice of counsel; the court held that a presently sane defendant has control over this decision

  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