People v. McDaniel
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CLARK, J.
— Defendant was convicted of violation of Health and Safety Code section 11355. The judgment must be reversed.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury that one violates section 11355 if he offers to sell a controlled substance and then offers to deliver another substance in lieu thereof. The case law, defendant asserts, requires actual delivery of the substitute. This contention lacks merit. The statute expressly provides that the crime defined by it is committed by one who offers to sell a controlled substance “and then . . . offers ... to have . . .…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. SedenoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- People v. HoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- People v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- People v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- People v. HintonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. PierreSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1987
- People v. OlivenciaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.