§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. JUAREZ

Respondent, Gerardo Juarez, Petition for Review

16 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Birks

    19 Cal.4th 108 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 1,000 times
    Holding that criminal defendant has no unilateral entitlement to instructions on lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge

  2. State v. Mancebo

    27 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 470 times
    Upholding decision striking unpled multiple victim circumstances although charging document alleged One-Strike-qualifying offenses against multiple victims

  3. People v. Clark

    50 Cal.3d 583 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 229 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Clark, we noted that the purpose of the psychotherapist-patient privilege is to promote the therapeutic relationship, a purpose that "can no longer be achieved once the therapist has revealed the confidential communications to third parties."

  4. Burris v. Superior Court

    34 Cal.4th 1012 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 100 times
    In Burris, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1012, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 876, 103 P.3d 276, a misdemeanor complaint was dismissed, followed by a felony charge based on the same conduct.

  5. People v. Barrick

    33 Cal.3d 115 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 180 times
    Rejecting sanitization because it undermines jury's ability to assess credibility of witness

  6. People v. Traylor

    46 Cal.4th 1205 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 32 times
    In Traylor, however, our high court was not analyzing the situation we have here, an allegation of two separate offenses occurring on two different occasions.

  7. People v. Cannady

    8 Cal.3d 379 (Cal. 1972)   Cited 96 times
    Approving use of flight instruction in circumstances also consistent with defendants intending to report incident to prison guards

  8. People v. Salcido

    166 Cal.App.4th 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 22 times
    Reviewing questions of statutory interpretation of section 1387 under the de novo review standard

  9. Dunn v. Superior Court

    159 Cal.App.3d 1110 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 29 times
    In Dunn, the defendant was initially charged with kidnapping, assault with intent to commit rape, and a violation of Vehicle Code § 10851.

  10. Wallace v. Municipal Court

    140 Cal.App.3d 100 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that section 853.6 provided a mandatory bar to prosecution regardless of any showing of actual prejudice

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 341 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

  12. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 122 times

    (a)Issues to be briefed and argued (1) On or after ordering review, the Supreme Court may specify the issues to be briefed and argued. Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties must limit their briefs and arguments to those issues and any issues fairly included in them. (2) Notwithstanding an order specifying issues under (1), the court may, on reasonable notice, order oral argument on fewer or additional issues or on the entire cause. (b)Issues to be decided (1) The Supreme Court may decide

  13. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)