§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. CASTILLOLOPEZ

Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice

105 Cited authorities

  1. Miranda v. Arizona

    384 U.S. 436 (1966)   Cited 60,311 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

  2. People v. Beamon

    8 Cal.3d 625 (Cal. 1973)   Cited 972 times
    Holding under section 654 that " ‘execution of sentence for Count 1 [must] be stayed pending the finality of this judgment and service of sentence as to Count 2, such stay is to become permanent when service of sentence as to Count 2 is completed’ "

  3. People v. Rubalcava

    23 Cal.4th 322 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 257 times
    Holding that the intent to use a dagger as a stabbing weapon is not an express element of California Penal Code § 12020

  4. People v. Szeto

    29 Cal.3d 20 (Cal. 1981)   Cited 281 times
    Upholding jury's "implied finding" that accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated because the corroborating evidence was properly admitted and "did reasonably tend to connect defendant with the crimes"

  5. People v. Eubanks

    14 Cal.4th 580 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 176 times
    Holding that the appearance of impropriety alone is not an independent ground for prosecutorial disqualification and an actual conflict must be so grave as to make fair treatment unlikely in order to disqualify the district attorney's office

  6. People v. Ledesma

    16 Cal.4th 90 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 132 times
    Noting that "the 'shall'/'may' dichotomy . . . is not a fixed rule of statutory construction. Moreover, unlike some codes that expressly define 'shall' as mandatory and 'may' as permissive, the Penal Code provides only that '[w]ords and phrases must be construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language . . . .' (§ 7, subd. 16.)."

  7. People v. Pepper

    41 Cal.App.4th 1029 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 124 times
    Finding defendant had adequate legal alternative to possessing gun in order to move it away from children because "defendant could have taken the children from the room and then had his sister move the weapon to a place of safety"

  8. People v. Bain

    5 Cal.3d 839 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 181 times
    In Bain, the prosecutor asserted the defendant and his counsel had fabricated their defense and further assured the jury he would not have prosecuted the defendant if he did not believe he was guilty, without explaining the basis for that belief.

  9. People v. Satchell

    6 Cal.3d 28 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 167 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the objective is "to deter those engaged in felonies from killing negligently or accidentally"

  10. Mozzetti v. Superior Court

    4 Cal.3d 699 (Cal. 1971)   Cited 166 times
    Holding police as involuntary bailees are not liable for ordinary negligence and have a duty to use only slight care in protecting the bailment

  11. Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1988   Cited 21,790 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)

  12. Section 921 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 921   Cited 4,064 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Adopting this definition

  13. Section 16470 - "Dirk" or "dagger" defined

    Cal. Pen. Code § 16470   Cited 53 times
    Defining dirk or dagger

  14. Section 1715 - Firearms as nonmailable; regulations

    18 U.S.C. § 1715   Cited 38 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Making an exception to the nonmailable firearm law to, inter alia, “officers of the National Guard or Militia of a State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District; to officers of the United States or of a State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession”

  15. Section 5844 - Importation

    26 U.S.C. § 5844   Cited 11 times
    Permitting importation of firearms for use by the United States or any State, for scientific or research purposes, or for use as a sample by a registered importer or dealer

  16. Rule 8.252 - Judicial notice; findings and evidence on appeal

    Cal. R. 8.252   Cited 594 times

    (a)Judicial notice (1) To obtain judicial notice by a reviewing court under Evidence Code section 459, a party must serve and file a separate motion with a proposed order. (2) The motion must state: (A) Why the matter to be noticed is relevant to the appeal; (B) Whether the matter to be noticed was presented to the trial court and, if so, whether judicial notice was taken by that court; (C) If judicial notice of the matter was not taken by the trial court, why the matter is subject to judicial notice

  17. Rule 8.630 - Briefs by parties and amicus curiae

    Cal. R. 8.630   Cited 16 times

    (a)Contents and form Except as provided in this rule, briefs in appeals from judgments of death must comply as nearly as possible with rules 8.200 and 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Length (1) A brief produced on a computer must not exceed the following limits, including footnotes: (A) Appellant's opening brief: 102,000 words. (B) Respondent's brief: 102,000 words. If the Chief Justice permits the appellant to file an opening brief that exceeds the limit set in (1)(A) or

  18. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007

  19. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any