41 Cited authorities

Miller v. Alabama
567 U.S. 460 (2012) Cited 6,836 times 63 Legal Analyses
Holding mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders
Graham v. Florida
560 U.S. 48 (2010) Cited 4,408 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders
Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,303 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
People v. Gutierrez
58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) Cited 1,147 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that construing a sentencing statute as establishing "a presumption in favor of life without parole [for juvenile homicide offenders] raises serious constitutional concerns under the reasoning of Miller and the body of precedent upon which Miller relied"
People v. Fuiava
53 Cal.4th 622 (Cal. 2012) Cited 996 times
Holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to misconduct and civil rights lawsuits against the defendant's colleagues because the minimal relevance of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and undue consumption of time
People v. Williams
49 Cal.4th 405 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,044 times
Holding that "the suggestions made by the interrogating officers that defendant may not have been the actual killer, or may not have intended that the victim die" were a permissible interrogation tactic
People v. Prince
40 Cal.4th 1179 (Cal. 2007) Cited 1,160 times
Holding an FBI special agent from the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime—the same Center that submitted the report in Mr. Bailey's case—could "testify as an expert on crime scene analysis and ‘signature crimes' "
People v. Edwards
57 Cal.4th 658 (Cal. 2013) Cited 770 times
Finding no undue prejudice from reference to "arrest" where other acts evidence described would lead jury to "surmise defendant had been arrested for that offense"
People v. Thompson
49 Cal.4th 79 (Cal. 2010) Cited 821 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that juror declarations did not indicate a refusal to deliberate where the declarations failed to "present examples of objective failure to deliberate, such as jurors who turned their backs or otherwise objectively segregated themselves from deliberations"
People v. Gutierrez
45 Cal.4th 789 (Cal. 2009) Cited 736 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a voluntary manslaughter instruction is not warranted where the act that allegedly provoked the killing was no more than taunting words, a technical battery, or slight touching."
Section 2281 - Determination of Suitability
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 2281 Cited 317 times
Finding of suitability for release is better when “[i]nstitutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release”
Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions
Cal. R. 8.1115 Cited 73,846 times
(a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary
Rule 8.512 - Ordering review
Cal. R. 8.512 Cited 3,575 times
(a) Transmittal of record On receiving a copy of a petition for review or on request of the Supreme Court, whichever is earlier, the clerk/executive officer of the Court of Appeal must promptly send the record to the Supreme Court. If the petition is denied, the clerk/executive officer of the Supreme Court must promptly return the record to the Court of Appeal if the record was transmitted in paper form. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2018; previously amended effective January 1, 2016.) (b)Determination
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. CONTRERAS

41 Cited authorities

Holding mandatory life without parole sentences unconstitutional for all juvenile offenders

Holding life without parole sentences unconstitutional for non-homicide juvenile offenders

Holding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment

Holding that construing a sentencing statute as establishing "a presumption in favor of life without parole [for juvenile homicide offenders] raises serious constitutional concerns under the reasoning of Miller and the body of precedent upon which Miller relied"

Holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to misconduct and civil rights lawsuits against the defendant's colleagues because the minimal relevance of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the risk of jury confusion and undue consumption of time

Holding that "the suggestions made by the interrogating officers that defendant may not have been the actual killer, or may not have intended that the victim die" were a permissible interrogation tactic

Holding an FBI special agent from the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime—the same Center that submitted the report in Mr. Bailey's case—could "testify as an expert on crime scene analysis and ‘signature crimes' "

Finding no undue prejudice from reference to "arrest" where other acts evidence described would lead jury to "surmise defendant had been arrested for that offense"

Finding that juror declarations did not indicate a refusal to deliberate where the declarations failed to "present examples of objective failure to deliberate, such as jurors who turned their backs or otherwise objectively segregated themselves from deliberations"

Holding that "a voluntary manslaughter instruction is not warranted where the act that allegedly provoked the killing was no more than taunting words, a technical battery, or slight touching."

Finding of suitability for release is better when “[i]nstitutional activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release”