16 Cited authorities

Richardson v. United States
468 U.S. 317 (1984) Cited 705 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy" and that "[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at petitioner's first trial, he has no valid double jeopardy claim to prevent his retrial"
People v. Reed
38 Cal.4th 1224 (Cal. 2006) Cited 919 times
Holding that only the elements test, and not the accusative pleading test, is appropriate for determining what qualifies as a lesser included offense
State v. Russo
25 Cal.4th 1124 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,099 times
Holding a "jury need not agree on a / / / specific overt act as long as it unanimously finds beyond a reasonable doubt that some conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy"
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
People v. Guiuan
18 Cal.4th 558 (Cal. 1998) Cited 694 times
Approving this instruction
People v. Saunders
5 Cal.4th 580 (Cal. 1993) Cited 669 times
Detailing California approach, since 1874, of permitting stipulation and, more recently, of also permitting bifurcation
People v. Toro
47 Cal.3d 966 (Cal. 1989) Cited 232 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.
Kellett v. Superior Court
63 Cal.2d 822 (Cal. 1966) Cited 320 times
In Kellett, the California Supreme Court held that under § 654, the failure to unite all offenses in the same act or course of conduct "will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence."
Stone v. Superior Court
31 Cal.3d 503 (Cal. 1982) Cited 197 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "trial court is constitutionally obligated to afford the jury an opportunity to render a partial verdict of acquittal on a greater offense when the jury is deadlocked only on an uncharged lesser included offense" before granting a mistrial
People v. Haskin
4 Cal.App.4th 1434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 100 times
Applying same principle in context of sentence enhancements
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

PEOPLE v. GOOLSBY

16 Cited authorities

Holding that "the failure of the jury to reach a verdict is not an event which terminates jeopardy" and that "[r]egardless of the sufficiency of the evidence at petitioner's first trial, he has no valid double jeopardy claim to prevent his retrial"

Holding that only the elements test, and not the accusative pleading test, is appropriate for determining what qualifies as a lesser included offense

Holding a "jury need not agree on a / / / specific overt act as long as it unanimously finds beyond a reasonable doubt that some conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy"

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

Approving this instruction

Detailing California approach, since 1874, of permitting stipulation and, more recently, of also permitting bifurcation

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.

In Kellett, the California Supreme Court held that under § 654, the failure to unite all offenses in the same act or course of conduct "will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence."

Holding that a "trial court is constitutionally obligated to afford the jury an opportunity to render a partial verdict of acquittal on a greater offense when the jury is deadlocked only on an uncharged lesser included offense" before granting a mistrial

Applying same principle in context of sentence enhancements