Boyde v. California

114 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. GOMEZ

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed June 12, 2013

    ) This Court must further presumethat a “commonsense understandingofthe instructionsin the light of all that has taken placeat the trial [is] likely to prevail over technical hairsplitting” during deliberations. (Boyde v. California (1990) 494 US. 370, 381 [110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316].) Here, the subject instruction did not preclude consideration of moral values based onreligion, just use of religious texts during deliberations.

  2. PEOPLE v. SCOTT (ROYCE LYN)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed July 23, 2007

    (Boydev. California, supra, 494 U.S. at p. 380.) That occurred here becausethe trial court refused to give appellant’s proposedinstruction that a mitigating circumstance need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury wasthus left with the impression that the defendant bore someparticular burden in proving facts in mitigation.

  3. PEOPLE v. LUCAS

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed January 12, 2006

    Asdiscussed in Argument LVL., supra, there is no reasonable likelihoodthat thejury viewedtheinstruction as permittingit to arbitrarily disregard lingering doubt 517 in reaching its verdict. (Boyde v. California, supra, 494 U.S. at p. 381.) In thefirst place, the instruction simply did not state the jury was free to arbitrarily disregard lingering doubt;instead, it addressed a subject area not covered in the factors the jury was to consider in determining punishment (see 70 TRT 13326-13327) and expressly permitted consideration of lingering doubt as part of the penalty determination.

  4. PEOPLE v. HARDY

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 12, 2013

    This mandatory languageis consistent with the individualized consideration ofa capital defendant’s circumstancesthat is required underthe Eighth Amendment. (See Boyde v. California, supra, 494 U.S. 370, 377.) Yet, CALJIC No. 8.

  5. PEOPLE v. TRUJEQUE (TOMMY ADRIAN)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 23, 2012

    Constitutional error occurs when thereis a likelihood that a jury has applied an instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence. (Boyde v. California, supra, 494 U.S. at p. 380.) That occurred here because the jury wasleft with the impression that the defendant bore someparticular burden in proving facts in mitigation.

  6. PEOPLE v. POTTS

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed April 30, 2009

    Constitutional error occurs when there is a likelihood that a jury has applied an instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence. (Boyde v. California, supra, 494 U.S. at p. 380.) That occurred here because the jury was left with the impression that the defendant bore some particular burden in proving facts in mitigation.

  7. PEOPLE v. JACKSON (JONATHAN KEITH)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed September 22, 2008

    Because California's "standard" instructions do not adequately permit or direct the jury to consider lingering doubt, the failure to give any such instruction, such as the ones proposed by appellant, is a violation of appellant's due process and Eighth Amendment rights. Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S.370, 377 [Eighth Amendment requires that jury be able to consider and give effect to all of a capital defendant's mitigating evidence]; Penry v. Johnson (2001) 532 U.S. 782, 797 [it is constitutionally insufficient merely to tell the jury it may "consider" mitigating circumstances]. In Lockett v. Ohio, supra, 438 U.S. 586, 604, the Supreme Court held that states cannot exclude anything from the sentencer's consideration that might serve "as a basis for a sentence less than death."

  8. PEOPLE v. SOUZA (MATTHEW ARIC)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 18, 2005

    “Once this low threshold for relevance is met, the ‘Eighth Amendment requires that the jury be 234 able to consider and give effect to’ a capital defendant’s mitigating evidence.” (Tennard v. Dretke, supra, at p. 2570, quoting from Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. at pp. 377-378 [and authorities cited therein]; Buchanan v. Angelone (1998) 522 U.S. 269, 275.) Certainly, there is no question that consideration of lingering doubt serves the paramount need for heightenedreliability in death penalty judgments.

  9. PEOPLE v. BRYANT

    Appellant, Stanley Bryant, Opening Brief

    Filed December 16, 2004

    (Boydev. California, supra, 494 U.S. at p. 380.) Constitutional error thus occurs when “there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.”

  10. PEOPLE v. HARDY

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed November 21, 2014

    It is “equally likely that... the verdict rested on an unconstitutional ground’ as on a constitutional one.” (Gibson v. Ortiz, supra, 387 F3d at p. 825, quoting Boyde v. California, supra,494 U.S. at p. 380.) 141 Based on the foregoing, the judgmentof guilt on counts 1 and 8, the true findings on the torture allegations to counts 1, and 4 through 7, and the judgmentof death should be reversed.