§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. HOPSON

Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

42 Cited authorities

  1. Crawford v. Washington

    541 U.S. 36 (2004)   Cited 17,419 times   82 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause bars "admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination"

  2. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,494 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. Chambers v. Mississippi

    410 U.S. 284 (1973)   Cited 5,980 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the application of the rule against hearsay to exclude exculpatory testimony violated the defendant's right to present a complete defense because the testimony was reliable

  4. Williams v. Illinois

    567 U.S. 50 (2012)   Cited 980 times
    Holding that a DNA matching process is not testimonial

  5. Harris v. New York

    401 U.S. 222 (1971)   Cited 2,515 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that voluntary statements obtained in violation of Miranda are admissible for impeachment on cross-examination

  6. Michigan v. Harvey

    494 U.S. 344 (1990)   Cited 677 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statement taken in violation of the prophylactic rule — that once defendant invokes his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, subsequent waiver of that right is presumed invalid if secured pursuant to police-initiated conversation — may be used to impeach defendant's inconsistent testimony

  7. Tennessee v. Street

    471 U.S. 409 (1985)   Cited 775 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that non-hearsay admissions do not raise "Confrontation Clause concerns"

  8. People v. Jennings

    50 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 1,079 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding trial court not required to give sua sponte instruction on "complete defense" of accident that would negate the intent element necessary for first degree murder convictions where defense hinged on facts particular to the case and the defendant failed to request the instruction

  9. People v. Hernandez

    33 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 1,332 times
    Holding the prosecution may utilize expert testimony about gang culture and habits to establish the elements of a gang allegation

  10. United States v. Inadi

    475 U.S. 387 (1986)   Cited 533 times
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment does not require an unavailability rule for the admission of coconspirator statements

  11. Section 15

    Cal. Const. art. I § 15   Cited 3,314 times
    Affording “the right ... to compel attendance of witnesses in the defendant's behalf”

  12. 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