15 Cited authorities

Ohio v. Johnson
467 U.S. 493 (1984) Cited 1,195 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes
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"
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
Downum v. United States
372 U.S. 734 (1963) Cited 738 times
Holding that such gambling precludes the demonstration of manifest necessity necessary for a mistrial
Wade v. Hunter
336 U.S. 684 (1949) Cited 1,167 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal, he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment
People v. Guiuan
18 Cal.4th 558 (Cal. 1998) Cited 694 times
Approving this instruction
Fong Foo v. United States
369 U.S. 141 (1962) Cited 390 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an acquittal prevents a second prosecution even if it is based upon an "egregious error" of fact or law
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."
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

15 Cited authorities

Holding double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of more serious crimes when defendant pleaded to less serious crimes

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 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

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

Holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not mandate that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal, he is entitled to go free if that trial fails to end in a final judgment

Approving this instruction

Holding that an acquittal prevents a second prosecution even if it is based upon an "egregious error" of fact or law

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."