Legal Opinion
People v. Monk
California Superior Court
Decided February 20, 2018No. BR 053558PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRicciardulli, J.
*3INTRODUCTION
Defendant Pamela Monk was found guilty of starting to cross a roadway after the "DON'T WALK" sign began flashing (former Veh. Code, § 21456, subd. (b) ). She appeals the judgment, and as discussed below, we reverse.
After she was convicted, and while her case was on appeal, the statute was amended to allow a person to start to cross an intersection after a "DON'T WALK" sign is flashing when a sign's accompanying "countdown" signal timer has not expired. In the absence of any contrary indications, we infer the Legislature intended its ameliorative change to the jaywalking law to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- People v. MauryCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- The People v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- People v. NasalgaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- San Diego Unified Sch. Dist. v. Yee, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. Onesra Enters., Inc.California Superior Court · 2018
- Amir v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2018
- Amir v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.California Superior Court · 2018
- Mendoza v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2023
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.