People v. Hinds

5 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. CONTRERAS

    Appellant, Leonel Contreras, Petition for Review

    Filed February 24, 2015

    ’ [Citations] (Id. at p. 228.) In People v. Hinds (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 222,the court emphasized the constant that underlies this branch of the voluntariness equation: “Threats, express or implied, of heavy punishment, accompanied by promises or suggestions of leniency or other advantageif a confession is given, render a statement inadmissible. Suchtactics are distinguishable from mere exhortationsto tell the truth.

  2. PEOPLE v. SPENCER

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed December 19, 2010

    The fact that the death penalty is threatened is a factor that argues strongly against the voluntariness of a statement. See Neal, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 81-82; McClary, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 223; and Hinds, supra, 154 Cal.App.3d at p. 238. Based on this case law, the fact that the death penalty 113 YERametERGENCEONAoreo Gea ea a pL lb was threatened here could be nearly enough on its own to render appellant’s statement involuntary.

  3. PEOPLE v. LINTON (DANIEL A.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 12, 2009

    If the introduction of inadmissible evidence constitutes a denial of federal due process, failure to make the specific proper objection should not waive the issue on appeal. (People v. Matteson (1964) 61 Cal.2d 466, 468-469; People v. Underwood (1964) 61 Cal.2d 113, 126; People v. Hinds (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 222, 237, citing Jackson v. Denno (1964) 378 U.S. 368, 376-377.) 235 Fifth, in situations such as presented by this case, the trial judge must bear some responsibility “for safeguarding both the rights of the accused andthe interest of the public in the administration of criminal justice.

  4. PEOPLE v. BRYANT

    Appellant, Donald Franklin Smith, Reply Brief

    Filed January 12, 2007

    This Court and other appellate courts have at times addressed such constitu- tional questions in the absence of proper objection below. (See, e.g., Hale v. Mor- ® People v. Matteson (1964) 61 Cal.2d 466, 468-469, overruled on other grounds in People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478; People v. Underwood (1964) 61 Cal.2d 113, 126; People v. Hinds (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 222, 237 85 gan (1978) 22 C3d 388, 394 ["[A]lthough California authorities on the point are not uniform, our courts have several times examined constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal, especially when the enforcement of a penal statute is involved [citation] ... ."; People v. Allen (1974) 41 CA3d 196, 201, fn. 1 — Court of Appeal reached the merits of a constitutional evidence challenge even though the record showed no objection, because "the constitutional question can properly be raised for the first time on appeal [citation]."]; People v. Norwood (1972) 26 CA3d 148, 153 ["A matter normally not reviewable upon direct appeal, but which is . .. vulnerable to habeas corpus proceedings based upon constitutional grounds may be considered upon direct appeal."

  5. PEOPLE v. BRYANT

    Appellant, Donald Franklin Smith, Opening Brief

    Filed December 15, 2004

    a1.4th 536 390 People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Ca1.2d 614 352 '. People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Ca1.4th 558 49,50,56,74 People v. Gutierrez (2000) 78 CaLAppAth 170 204 it People v. Guzman (1988) 45 CaL3d 915 III People v. Hall (1964) 62 CaL2d 104 75 People v. Hamilton (1989) 48 Ca1.3d 1141 358 • People v. Hannon (1977) 19 CaL3d 588 78 People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Ca1.4th 86 70,96,106,114,115,122 It People v. Harrington (1871) 42 Cal. 165 251,252,260 People v. Harris (1981) 28 Ca1.3d 935 73 xxxvii • People v. Harris (1981) 28 Ca1.3d 935 351 People v. Harvey (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1206 211 • People v. Haslouer (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 818 167 People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Ca1.4th 43 192,383 • People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577 397,398,407 People v. Heard (2003) 31 Ca1.4th 946 296,301 People v. Henderson (1949) 34 Ca1.2d 340 66 • People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Ca1.4th 835 198,386 People v. Hill (1998) 17 Ca1.4th 800 221,232,257,289,441 • People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469 440 People v. Hinds (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 222 193 • People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997 245 People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Ca1.3d 1098 265 People v. Holt (1984) 37 Ca1.3d 436 444 • People v. Huggins (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 828 199 People v. Hughey (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 1383 205 • People v. Hutchinson (1969) 71 Ca1.2d 342 266 People v. Isby (1947) 30 CaL2d 879,[186 P.2d 405 279 People v. Isenor (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 324 104 • People v. Jackson (1993) 14 CaLApp.4th 1818 252 People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Ca1.4th 1164 375 • People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Ca1.3d 557 46 xxxviii • q~. I ! •. t'j 1 I •• " •• N I • People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Ca1.3d 1194 104 • People v. Johnson (1992) 3 CaL4th 1183 375 People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1 267,268 People v. Johnson (1998) 62 Cal.AppAth 608 111 1. People v. Jones (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 460 231 People v. Jones (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 237 106, 116 People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612 174 People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 648 345 1. People v. Keenan (1988) 46 CaL3d 478 104 People v.