Legal Opinion

People v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Decided March 29, 2004No. S108291PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KENNARD, J.

Defendant, a convicted sex offender, is required to register with the police and tell them where he is living. (Pen. Code, § 290.) He was charged with failure to register, in violation of section 290, subdivision (g), because he failed to inform the police of a change of address within five working days, as required by section 290, subdivision (f)(1). Defendant claimed he mailed the required notice, but the police did not receive it. After the trial court told the jury that a registered sex offender must see to it that the written notification of a change of address is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. People v. AveryCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Mejia v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Wright v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  5. People v. CastenadaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Wells v. One2One Learning FoundationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  2. In Re DannenbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  3. People v. HofsheierCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
  5. McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API