19 Cited authorities

People v. Rangel
62 Cal.4th 1192 (Cal. 2016) Cited 896 times
Holding that Hurst did not render unconstitutional California's capital sentencing scheme, which utilizes a jury in the fact-finding process
People v. Vieira
35 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2005) Cited 872 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant could not challenge district court's refusal to include particular question in jury questionnaire because defendant did not request such question
In re Estrada
63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) Cited 4,248 times
Holding that a defendant "is entitled to the ameliorating benefits of the statutes as amended" if "the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final"
People v. Nasalga
12 Cal.4th 784 (Cal. 1996) Cited 482 times
Holding Estrada rule inapplicable to statutes with an express saving clause or its equivalent
Evangelatos v. Superior Court
44 Cal.3d 1188 (Cal. 1988) Cited 538 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a measure, which modified the traditional, common law joint and several liability doctrine, did not apply to claims for relief that had accrued before the effective date of the new law
People v. Wright
40 Cal.4th 81 (Cal. 2006) Cited 239 times
Holding MMPA is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial
People v. Francis
71 Cal.2d 66 (Cal. 1969) Cited 727 times
Concluding that a statutory amendment vesting discretionary sentencing power in the trial court applied retroactively to all cases not final on appeal, including those where the defendant had already been sentenced, despite " ‘the very nature’ of the [sentencing] amendment"
Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
28 Cal.4th 828 (Cal. 2002) Cited 223 times 2 Legal Analyses
Explaining that unless a California statute contains an express retroactivity provision, it will not be applied retroactively unless it is clear from extrinsic sources that the legislature intended it to be applied retroactively
People v. Collins
21 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) Cited 230 times
Holding repeal of criminal statute requires dismissal of pending criminal proceedings charging such conduct
People v. Rossi
18 Cal.3d 295 (Cal. 1976) Cited 173 times
Reversing oral copulation conviction after legislative amendment rendered the defendant's conduct non-criminal

PEOPLE v. S.C. (LARA)

19 Cited authorities

Holding that Hurst did not render unconstitutional California's capital sentencing scheme, which utilizes a jury in the fact-finding process

Holding that defendant could not challenge district court's refusal to include particular question in jury questionnaire because defendant did not request such question

Holding that a defendant "is entitled to the ameliorating benefits of the statutes as amended" if "the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final"

Holding Estrada rule inapplicable to statutes with an express saving clause or its equivalent

Holding that a measure, which modified the traditional, common law joint and several liability doctrine, did not apply to claims for relief that had accrued before the effective date of the new law

Holding MMPA is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial

Concluding that a statutory amendment vesting discretionary sentencing power in the trial court applied retroactively to all cases not final on appeal, including those where the defendant had already been sentenced, despite " ‘the very nature’ of the [sentencing] amendment"

Explaining that unless a California statute contains an express retroactivity provision, it will not be applied retroactively unless it is clear from extrinsic sources that the legislature intended it to be applied retroactively

Holding repeal of criminal statute requires dismissal of pending criminal proceedings charging such conduct

Reversing oral copulation conviction after legislative amendment rendered the defendant's conduct non-criminal