People v. Miranda
California Court of Appeal
1Concurrence
MOSK, J., Concurring.
I concur.
Defendant’s contention on appeal as to the insufficiency of evidence that Jane Doe had a mental disorder preventing her from giving legal consent is arguable, although, ultimately I concur in the majority’s opinion. Defendant correctly argues—as the Attorney General concedes—that the trial court erred in failing, sua sponte, to instruct the jury as to the meaning of “legal consent” in Penal Code1 sections 261, subdivision (a)(1), 288a, subdivision (g), and 289, subdivision (b). But that error was not prejudicial.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
A. Relevant Legal…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- People v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. SmitheyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. PoggiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.