26 Cited authorities

People v. Breverman
19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) Cited 3,871 times
Holding that the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone subject only to state standards of reversibility
United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.
430 U.S. 564 (1977) Cited 1,080 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding "appeals by the Government from . . . judgments of acquittal" entered under Rule 29 are authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3731 "unless barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution"
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
People v. Birks
19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998) Cited 991 times
Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge
Downum v. United States
372 U.S. 734 (1963) Cited 739 times
Holding that such gambling precludes the demonstration of manifest necessity necessary for a mistrial
Martinez v. Illinois
574 U.S. 927 (2014) Cited 85 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded retrial of a defendant after the first jury was sworn, even though no evidence was presented as a result of the prosecution's inability to procure attendance of its key witnesses
People v. Hatch
22 Cal.4th 260 (Cal. 2000) Cited 311 times
Noting the statute is sometimes denominated the “ ‘two-dismissal rule’ ”
People v. West
3 Cal.3d 595 (Cal. 1970) Cited 727 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining; an accepted plea bargain must be recorded; and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense
People v. Toro
47 Cal.3d 966 (Cal. 1989) Cited 234 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Toro, we held that consent to instructions on an uncharged lesser related offense could be inferred from defense counsel's failure to object, and that such failure to object 'bar[s] a contention based on lack of notice.' [Citations.
People v. Shirley
31 Cal.3d 18 (Cal. 1982) Cited 262 times
Holding that under the strict "general acceptance" approach, novel scientific evidence should not be admitted if "scientists significant either in number or expertise publicly oppose [such evidence]. . . ."

PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

26 Cited authorities

Holding that the failure to instruct on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone subject only to state standards of reversibility

Holding "appeals by the Government from . . . judgments of acquittal" entered under Rule 29 are authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3731 "unless barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution"

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

Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge

Holding that such gambling precludes the demonstration of manifest necessity necessary for a mistrial

Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded retrial of a defendant after the first jury was sworn, even though no evidence was presented as a result of the prosecution's inability to procure attendance of its key witnesses

Noting the statute is sometimes denominated the “ ‘two-dismissal rule’ ”

Holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining; an accepted plea bargain must be recorded; and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense

In Toro, we held that consent to instructions on an uncharged lesser related offense could be inferred from defense counsel's failure to object, and that such failure to object 'bar[s] a contention based on lack of notice.' [Citations.

Holding that under the strict "general acceptance" approach, novel scientific evidence should not be admitted if "scientists significant either in number or expertise publicly oppose [such evidence]. . . ."