Legal Opinion

People v. Winslow

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 22, 1995No. B067970PublishedCited by 21 opinions

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

  1. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. In Re LynchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. People v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. People v. CahillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  5. People v. WimsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. People v. NeelyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. In Re BirdwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  3. People v. AubreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. People v. RosburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  5. People v. ChambersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003

16 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