Legal Opinion

People v. May

California Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1988No. Crim. 24991PublishedCited by 98 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LUCAS, C. J.

In this case we consider whether Proposition 8, and its “Truth-in-Evidence” component (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d) (hereafter section 28(d)), abrogated the rule of People v. Disbrow (1976) 16 Cal.3d 101 [127 Cal.Rptr. 360, 545 P.2d 272] (inadmisssibility for impeachment purposes of defendant’s extrajudicial statements elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]). As will appear, we have concluded that the Disbrow ruling indeed has been so abrogated. Accordingly, we do not reach the People’s…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Walder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  4. People v. Lance W.California Supreme Court · 1985
  5. New Jersey v. PortashSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

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

3Cited by98 opinions

  1. People v. CoffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  3. People v. HinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  4. People v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  5. People v. GutierrezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

93 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