Legal Opinion

People v. Smith

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 5, 2008No. D051448PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

In this case, we hold that a trial court does not violate a defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial by “preinstructing” the jury on the definitions of direct and circumstantial evidence under CALCRIM No. 223, without also preinstructing on the method of assessing the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence under CALCRIM No. 224, where these instructions are fully and correctly given along with the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proof at the close of evidence and before deliberations.

Here, a jury convicted Tyrone Lamar Smith…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. People v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  4. People v. GuerraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. People v. MusselwhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. People v. LivingstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. People v. LucasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  3. People v. ArdoinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. People v. MilosavljevicCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  5. People v. CarterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

26 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