People v. Coleman
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RACANELLI, P. J.
On appeal from an order made following entiy of a jury verdict finding defendant’s sanity had not been restored, 1 defendant puts the sole question as whether the People have a right to a jury trial in special proceedings undertaken pursuant to Penal Code section 1026a. 2 Examination of the substance of defendant’s claim supports our conclusion that the corollary and dispositive issue is whether the defendant has a right to a nonjury trial on the issue of his restored sanity.
Facts
The facts pertinent to our discussion are undisputed:
In June 1976, defendant was found not…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Singer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- People v. Gary W.California Supreme Court · 1971
- People v. FeagleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- In Re De La OCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- In Re FranklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Teal v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- People v. SwordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- People v. HerreraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- People v. MappCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- People v. Superior Court (Almond)California Court of Appeal · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.