People v. Montiel

80 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. DELGADO (ANTHONY GILBERT)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed March 30, 2014

    The prosecutor’s proffer at the hearing also may go beyond whatit actually presents to the jury. | Nor doesit suffice to require a defendant to move to “exclude or strike the evidence,” People v. Montiel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 928, fn. 23, after the actual evidence demonstrating insufficiency is adduced during trial. It is often entirely speculative when evidencetips from the pointof relatively weak to legally insufficient.

  2. PEOPLE v. SPENCER

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed December 19, 2010

    Othertrial judges and prosecutors have been misled in the same way. (See, e.g., People v. Montiel (1994) 5 Cal.4th 877, 944-945; Peoplev. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 423-424.

  3. PEOPLE v. CLARK (WILLIAM CLINTON)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed June 17, 2005

    Onthe one hand,the California Supreme Court hassaid that in order to use a criminal incident as an aggravating circumstance under factor (b) the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime. See, e.g., People v. Monteil, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 942. On the other hand, that court has rejected the view that the jury must agree 749 unanimously that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the uncharged crime.

  4. PEOPLE v. WINBUSH (GRAYLAND) (To be called and continued to the November 2016 calendar.)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed March 26, 2012

    Othertrial judges and prosecutors have been misled in the same way. (See, e.g., People v. Montiel (1994) 5 Cal.4th 877, 944-945; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 423-424.) The very real possibility that Winbush’s jury aggravated his sentence upon the basis of nonstatutory aggravation deprived him of an important state-law generated procedural safeguard and liberty interest — the right not to be sentenced to death except upon the basis of statutory aggravating factors (People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 765, 772-775) — and thereby violated Winbush’s Fourteenth Amendmentright to due process.

  5. PEOPLE v. LIVINGSTON (DAVID J.)

    Appellant's Reply Brief

    Filed January 18, 2012

    In Montiel, however, this Court wasaddressing a defendant’s claim that the evidence of earlier uncharged violence “was inadmissible.” (People v. Montiel, 5 Cal.4th at p. 928.) 14 No claim ofinstructional error wasraised in this section of the AOB.

  6. PEOPLE v. SCOTT (ROYCE LYN)

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed July 23, 2007

    For example, in 108 (...continued) trial court a note asking for a dictionary to obtain definitions of the terms “ageravating” and “mitigating.”]; People v. Lucero (2003) 23 Cal.4th 692, 723-725 [jury asked for meaning of aggravation and mitigation]; People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1017-1018 [Jury sent out a note asking for “the legal definitions for aggravating and mitigating circumstances as they apply to the instructions in making the determination ofthis sentence”; People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 940 [jury on second day of deliberation asked for written definitions of aggravation and mitigation]; People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 469 [the jury asked the trial court for either a legal dictionary or a legal definition of the terms mitigation and aggravation|; People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 936 [trial court asked to define aggravating and mitigating circumstances]; People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1035 [same]; People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 269 [same]; People v. McCain (1988) 46 Cal.3d 97, 117 [jury sent out a note: “being unfamiliar with the term of mitigation we would like the dictionary meaning of both mitigation and aggravation, please”’]; People v. Poggi (1988) 45 Cal.3d 306, 345 [jury asked for definition of phrases “aggravating circumstances” and “mitigating circumstances”]; People v. Karis (1988) 46 Cal.3d 612, 642 [jurors used a dictionary to define mitigation]; see also, People v. Friend (1957) 54 Cal.2d 749, 762 [in response to court question, for

  7. PEOPLE v. SÁNCHEZ (EDGARDO)

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed July 12, 2013

    No constitutional principle precludes examination of a witness about the sincerity and depth of religious and remorseful feelings he himself has placed in issue. (People v. Montiel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 934; see also People v. Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 950, 1032, disapproved on another point in People v. Doolin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 421, fn. 22.) . In the penalty phase of a capital trial, “The prosecutor[is] entitled to inquire into the circumstances of the underlying crimes.

  8. PEOPLE v. WOODRUFF

    Appellant’s Opening Brief

    Filed August 30, 2011

    If a seasoned judge could be misled by the languageat issue, how can jurors be expected to avoid making this same mistake? Othertrial judges and prosecutors have been misled in the same way.(See,e.g., People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4™ 877, 944-945 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 People v. Woodruff, 8115378 Appellant’s Opening Brief261 P P.2d 1277]; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4™ 312, 423-424 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 935 P.2d 708].) The very real possibility that the jury in the penalty phase of Mr. Woodruff’s trial aggravated his sentence based upon nonstatutory aggravation deprived Mr. Woodruff of an important state-law-generated procedural safeguard andliberty interest — the right not to be sentenced to death except uponthe basis of statutory aggravating factors (People v. Boyd (1985) 38 Cal.3d 765, 772-775 [215 Cal.Rptr. 1, 700 P.2d 782]) — and thereby violated Mr. Woodruff’s Fourteenth Amendmentright to due process of law. (See Hicks v. Oklahoma (1980) 447 U.S. 343 [100 S.Ct. 2227].)

  9. PEOPLE v. CAPISTRANO

    Respondent’s Brief

    Filed August 16, 2007

    27 would be construed by a reasonable jury to undermine these much-stressedprinciples.” (People v. Turner, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 697; see People v. Montiel, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 941.) Accordingly, appellant’s contention mustbe rejected.

  10. PEOPLE v. THOMAS (KEITH TYSON)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 31, 2007

    Othertrial judges have been misled in the same way. (See, e.g., People v. Montiel (1994) 5 Cal.4th 877, 944-945 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1271]; People v. Carpenter, supra, 15 Cal.4th 312, 423-424.) If experienced judges can be misled by the “whether or not” language at issue, there can belittle doubt jurors make the same mistake.