§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. FARWELL

Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

20 Cited authorities

  1. Neder v. United States

    527 U.S. 1 (1999)   Cited 4,935 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the failure to submit an uncontested element of an offense to a jury may be harmless

  2. Chapman v. California

    386 U.S. 18 (1967)   Cited 23,457 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that error is harmless only if "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"

  3. Boykin v. Alabama

    395 U.S. 238 (1969)   Cited 13,220 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a silent record is insufficient for a waiver of certain specified rights not at issue here

  4. Sullivan v. Louisiana

    508 U.S. 275 (1993)   Cited 3,276 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a constitutionally deficient reasonable doubt instruction constitutes structural error as the deprivation of the right to trial by jury has "necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate" consequences and "unquestionably qualifies as ‘structural error’ "

  5. Rose v. Clark

    478 U.S. 570 (1986)   Cited 1,808 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an unconstitutional instruction regarding malice in a murder case was subject to harmless-error analysis

  6. People v. Watson

    46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956)   Cited 13,674 times
    Holding that certain trial errors are harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that a different result would have occurred absent the error

  7. People v. Howard

    1 Cal.4th 1132 (Cal. 1992)   Cited 974 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant failed to show systematic exclusion to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement under Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 358–367, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579

  8. People v. Marshall

    13 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 802 times
    Finding "no possibility the jury could have misunderstood its obligation to assess the relevancy of the reconstruction photographs" where counsel argued reconstruction photographs inaccurately displayed conditions

  9. People v. Merritt

    2 Cal.5th 819 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 325 times
    Holding that the probative value of the use of a mannequin to illustrate the paths of six bullets, as explained by the prosecution's expert, and the use of photographs of an "accurate reconstruction" of an event, outweighed any prejudice to the defendant, particularly given that the expert testimony was "confusing at times."

  10. People v. Sapp

    31 Cal.4th 240 (Cal. 2003)   Cited 454 times
    Holding that a defendant's failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct waives the issue on appeal

  11. Section 13

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 13   Cited 4,507 times
    Requiring a "miscarriage of justice"

  12. Section 28

    Cal. Const. art. I § 28   Cited 2,118 times
    Granting crime victims the right "[t]o reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present"

  13. Section 16

    Cal. Const. art. I § 16   Cited 1,774 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the right to a "trial by jury is an inviolate right"

  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  15. Rule 5.682 - Commencement of jurisdiction hearing, advisement of trial rights; admission; no contest; submission

    Cal. R. 5.682   Cited 76 times

    (a) Rights explained (§§ 341, 353, 361.1) After giving the advisement required by rule 5.534, the court must advise the parent or guardian of the following rights: (1) The right to a hearing by the court on the issues raised by the petition; and (2) The right, if the child has been removed, to have the child returned to the parent or guardian within two working days after a finding by the court that the child does not come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, unless the