§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. COOK

Respondent’s Petition for Review

28 Cited authorities

  1. P1eople. v. Hill

    17 Cal.4th 800 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 3,797 times
    Holding the prosecutor committed misconduct insofar as her statement that '"[t]here has to be some evidence on which to base a doubt'" "could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"

  2. People v. Clark

    52 Cal.4th 856 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,274 times
    Holding that because the jury was instructed to ignore the improper question, there was little risk the jury made improper inferences from defendant's silence

  3. People v. Weaver

    26 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2001)   Cited 1,170 times
    Holding that under California law, a reviewing court must "defer to the trial court's resolution of disputed facts, including the credibility of witnesses, if that resolution is supported by substantial evidence"

  4. People v. Latimer

    5 Cal.4th 1203 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 1,245 times
    Finding single objectives for kidnapping and rape even though “[i]t could be argued that defendant had two intents”

  5. People v. Jones

    17 Cal.4th 279 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 795 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"

  6. People v. Collins

    49 Cal.4th 175 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 449 times
    Holding juror's use of home computer to make a diagram of relative positions of defendant and victim at time of shooting and demonstration during deliberations how victim may have sustained wound with downward trajectory not misconduct

  7. Neal v. State of California

    55 Cal.2d 11 (Cal. 1960)   Cited 1,594 times
    Holding that defendant who threw gasoline into a bedroom and ignited it could not be punished for both attempted murder and arson because the arson was the means used to commit the crime of attempted murder

  8. People v. Carrasco

    163 Cal.App.4th 978 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 299 times
    Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining a defendant who suffered from mental illness did not fall outside the Three Strikes scheme

  9. People v. Weaver

    149 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 283 times
    Holding that victims of drunk driver were particularly vulnerable because driver was traveling in the wrong direction at night with her lights off

  10. Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.

    51 Cal.4th 717 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 185 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Bruns, the issue before the court was whether a partial stay, such as a stay on discovery, would trigger section 583.340(b) ’s tolling provision.

  11. Rule 4.421 - Circumstances in aggravation

    Cal. R. 4.421   Cited 2,317 times

    Circumstances in aggravation include factors relating to the crime and factors relating to the defendant. (a)Facts relating to the crime Facts relating to the crime, whether or not charged or chargeable as enhancements, include the fact that: (1) The crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness; (2) The defendant was armed with or used a weapon at the time of the commission of the crime;

  12. Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1105   Cited 2,085 times

    (a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion

  13. 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

  14. Rule 8.11 - Scope of rules

    Cal. R. 8.11

    These rules apply to documents filed and served electronically as well as in paper form, unless otherwise provided. Cal. R. Ct. 8.11 Rule 8.11 adopted effective 1/1/2016.