§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ

Appellant, Edgar Octavio Barajas, Petition for Review

46 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Arizona v. Youngblood

    488 U.S. 51 (1988)   Cited 3,875 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "unless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law"

  3. California v. Trombetta

    467 U.S. 479 (1984)   Cited 4,135 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Constitution does not require the state to preserve a breath sample used in a breath-analysis test in a DUI prosecution

  4. Burks v. United States

    437 U.S. 1 (1978)   Cited 3,833 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding the trial court is "not to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses when it judges the merits of a motion for acquittal"

  5. People v. Doolin

    45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 3,874 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding defendant's request to represent himself was untimely where he sought self-representation at sentencing hearing only after his Marsden motion was denied

  6. People v. Frye

    18 Cal.4th 894 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 2,109 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in California "one may be convicted of burglary even if he enters with consent"

  7. People v. Rodrigues

    8 Cal.4th 1060 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 2,435 times
    Holding that the court's instructions as a whole properly guided the jury's consideration of the evidence because CALJIC No. 8.20 "adequately expressed the need for joint operation of act and intent [for first-degree murder]"

  8. People v. Franklin

    63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016)   Cited 1,016 times
    Finding Miller issues moot with regard to defendants subject to § 3051, subd. (b)-, which provides for parole hearings for certain juvenile offenders no later than their 25th year of incarceration

  9. People v. Abilez

    41 Cal.4th 472 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 1,085 times
    Holding it was proper for prosecutor to ask prospective jurors whether they had developed any principled reservation about voting for death after filling out their questionnaires and undergoing voir dire

  10. People v. Farnam

    28 Cal.4th 107 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,113 times
    Finding no misconduct where prosecutor referred to the defendant during opening statement as monstrous, cold-blooded, and a predator

  11. Section Amendment VI - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions

    U.S. Const. amend. VI   Cited 28,188 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Granting the accused the right to be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

  12. 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

  13. Rule 8.200 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae

    Cal. R. 8.200   Cited 713 times

    (a)Parties' briefs (1) Each appellant must serve and file an appellant's opening brief. (2) Each respondent must serve and file a respondent's brief. (3) Each appellant may serve and file a reply brief. (4) No other brief may be filed except with the permission of the presiding justice, unless it qualifies under (b) or (c)(7). (5) Instead of filing a brief, or as part of its brief, a party may join in or adopt by reference all or part of a brief in the same or a related appeal. (Subd (a) amended

  14. 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