People v. Winslow
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
YEGAN, J.
The word “enhancement” is bound to send shivers down the spine of any person charged with a felony. In some cases, such as the instant one, punishment for the enhancement may exceed the punishment for the underlying substantive offense. As the moving party in a criminal action, it is the People’s obligation not only to plead and prove an enhancement, but also to tender adequate instructions and verdict forms so that a lawful determination can be made and sustained on appeal. All too frequently, this responsibility is lost upon the prosecutor who concentrates on the substantive…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- In Re LynchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- People v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. CahillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. WimsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- People v. NeelyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- In Re BirdwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- People v. AubreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- People v. RosburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- People v. ChambersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.