LeMons v. Regents of University of California

6 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. SALAZAR (MAGDALENO)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed August 26, 2011

    (LeMonsv. Regents of University ofCalifornia, supra, 21 Cal.3d at p. 878; see Francis v. Franklin, supra, 471 USS.at p. 322.) Here, CALJIC No. 8.

  2. PEOPLE v. GOMEZ

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed December 19, 2014

    Ofcourse, in interpreting jury instructions, the specific prevails over the general. (LeMons v. Regents ofthe University ofCalifornia (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 878 [“[W]here two instructions are inconsistent, the more 165 specific charge controls the general charge.”]; People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 631-632 [reasonable jurors would understandfirst, specific instruction as controlling];°?

  3. PEOPLE v. NUNEZ & SATELE

    Appellant, Daniel Nunez, Supplemental Reply Brief

    Filed July 26, 2012

    The law is settled that when two instructions are inconsistent, the more specific charge to the jury controls. (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 878; Cummings v. County ofLos Angeles (1961) 56 Cal.2d 258, 267.) Thus, respondent’s claim that the trial court’s error in instructing that each principal is equally guilty was corrected by other instructions lacks merit.

  4. PEOPLE v. O'MALLEY (JAMES FRANCIS)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed April 26, 2010

    As this Court has made clear, “where two instructions are inconsistent, the more specific charge controls the general charge.” (LeMons v. Regents of University ofCalifornia (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 878, citing Cummings v. County ofLos Angeles (1961) 56 Cal.2d 258, 267.) The United States Supreme Court has likewise noted that a general instruction which contradicts an otherwise erroneous specific instruction will not remedy the infirmity.

  5. PEOPLE v. RICES

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed November 18, 2014

    To be sure, of course, jurors are normally presumed to follow such limiting instructions. (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 878.) But as the United States Supreme Court has concludedin a similar context, the law is a bit more nuanced.

  6. PEOPLE v. SOUZA (MATTHEW ARIC)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 18, 2005

    8 ....cccsssccsscsessssscsecssessesseessesees 212 Johnson v. Mississippi (1988) 486 U.S. 578 .......c.ccssccesesseeseccessssssseseseeeeese 298, 325 Johnson v. State (Nev. 2002) 59 P.3d 450 .....eesesscsssessesnesssesssssesssesssessesseee 355, 359 Johnson v. Texas (1993) 509 U.S. 350........ccccccesccseseseseesecsseccssssesesesessesceseseereceees 260 XVii Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458 oooeecesesenscseenseeessensnseseerersesrenensees 209 Killian v. Poole (9™ Cir. 2002) 282 F.3d 1204 ..c.cccesscssssssssessssssssssssessssssseesssseeess 167 King v. United States (D.C. 1967) 372 F.2d 383 .cscsssssssssssssssssssssssssessseessssseseeees 175 Kinsella v. United States (1960) 361 U.S. 234...cccccccsssecsssesssseessssssesssesssseesseeoess 389 LaGrandv. Lewis (D. Ariz. 1995) 883 F.Supp. 469, aff'd (9th Cir. 1998) 133 F.3d 1253 cesseesscssssessssecssssessssssucsssesssssessssesssessusessssssscesssesssessssssussssesseesssessasessseess111-406 LeMons v. Regents ofUniversity ofCalifornia (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869................ 246 Lindsey v. Washington (1937) 301 U.S. 397 uu...csssccstsescsecsstessssesssesscsesensees 407 Livingston v. State (Fla. 1988) 565 S0.2d 1288 ....c..ssesssesssssssssesssssssecsssessssessssesees 311 Lockett v. Ohio (1978) 438 U.S. 586 ..ccescsssscsssssssssessseessecsssssssssesstssssessneessseees 62, 237 Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162 c..ccsssssssssssssssssscsssssssessssecsssesneecssssesseeees 187 Lowenfield v. Phelps (1988) 484 U.S. 231 vvctescssssesssssssessssssssecssesesseseneeeenes 337, 340 Maher v. People (Mich Sup. Court 1862) 10 Mich. 212 ........c.cssssssssssssscssssssseeseeons3 Mak v. Blodgett (9™ Cir. 1992) 970 F.2d 614 .o.cccecccssssssssssessssescsssssesseesseessseesseaees 177 Marshall v. Union Oil (9th Cir. 1980) 616 F.2d 1113 ..cc.csccssssssssssssesccssesssesccsesnee 398 Matthews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319.vccessscssssssssesssescssssstessecrseccssecesecseenes 369 Maxwell v. Bishop (1970) 398 U.S. 262 ......ccssssessssssssssssscssesssscscnsscsss