§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. ESPINOZA

Respondent’s Reply Brief on the Merits

14 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Olano

    507 U.S. 725 (1993)   Cited 11,258 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plain error review requires a reviewing court to refrain from correcting an error unless it is plain and affects "substantial rights," such that the error "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings"

  2. Faretta v. California

    422 U.S. 806 (1975)   Cited 12,560 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant's right to self-representation was denied when he made his requests "weeks before trial" without any indication that the defendant was required to reassert his request during the trial

  3. People v. Jenkins

    22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000)   Cited 1,619 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it was not error to refuse to permit counsel to ask questions based upon an account of the facts of this case, or to ask a juror to consider particular facts that would cause him or her to impose the death penalty," because "`The Witherspoon-Witt voir dire seeks to determine only the views of the prospective jurors about capital punishment in the abstract. . . . The inquiry is directed to whether, without knowing the specifics of the case, the juror has an "open mind" on the penalty determination.'"

  4. People v. Valdez

    32 Cal.4th 73 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,357 times
    Rejecting claim of prosecutorial misconduct where witness testified that he obtained a picture of the defendant for a photo lineup when he "went to the jail and found a mug photo"; holding that "an admonition would have cured any prejudice"

  5. People v. Saunders

    5 Cal.4th 580 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 670 times
    Detailing California approach, since 1874, of permitting stipulation and, more recently, of also permitting bifurcation

  6. People v. Clark

    3 Cal.4th 41 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 651 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Faretta "did not establish a game in which a defendant can engage in a series of machinations, with one misstep by the court resulting in a reversal of an otherwise fair trial," or "a charade in which a defendant can continually manipulate the proceedings in the hope of eventually injecting reversible error into the case no matter how the court rules"

  7. People v. Estrada

    11 Cal.4th 568 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 469 times
    Holding "reckless indifference to human life" does not have a technical meaning and that court has no sua sponte duty to give explanatory instructions in the absence of a request when the terms are commonly understood by those familiar with the English language

  8. People v. Stansbury

    4 Cal.4th 1017 (Cal. 1993)   Cited 218 times
    Holding "not inappropriate," prosecutor's statement "`that's the best case I've ever seen in any case I've ever prosecuted of intentional misrepresentation and consciousness of guilt.'"

  9. People v. Carson

    35 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 144 times
    Holding that retrial was required if trial court on remand finds defendant's Faretta right was violated

  10. People v. Alice

    41 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 117 times

    No. S144501. July 5, 2007. Appeal from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. FMB006972, Bryan F. Foster, Judge. Michael A. Ramos, District Attorney, Mark A. Vos, Lead Deputy District Attorney, and Brent J. Schultze, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION MORENO, J. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Court of Appeal violated Government Code section 68081 by holding

  11. Rule 8.516 - Issues on review

    Cal. R. 8.516   Cited 119 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