Legal Opinion

People v. Van Winkle

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1999No. F030661PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VARTABEDIAN, Acting P. J.

A jury convicted defendant Jeffrey Lowell Van Winkle of two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. On appeal, defendant contends that CALJIC Nos. 2.50.1 and 2.50.01 unconstitutionally lower the People’s burden of proving the current sexual offense beyond a reasonable doubt by permitting prior sexual offenses (proved by a preponderance of the evidence) to show that he actually committed the current crime. Specifically, defendant contends that (1) prior sexual offenses should not be used to prove predisposition or actions in conformity therewith, (2)…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Sullivan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. County Court of Ulster Cty. v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Carella v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. People v. OchoaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. People v. LoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
  3. People v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. People v. WaplesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  5. People v. Gutierrez, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018

21 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