Legal Opinion
People v. Joiner
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 30, 1988No. A039401PublishedCited by 5 opinions
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KING, J.
In this case we hold that where the trial court erroneously failed to instruct the jury that penetration is an essential element of the crime of sodomy, the “Cantrell-Thornton” exception to per se reversal (People v. Garcia (1984) 36 Cal.3d 539, 555-557 [205 Cal.Rptr. 265, 684 P.2d 826]) may still apply, requiring that prejudice be assessed under the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-711, 87 S.Ct. 824, 24 A.L.R.3d 1065],
Eugene Joiner appeals a judgment of conviction for rape, sodomy and forcible oral…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Pope v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. RichieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- People v. ReyesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- People v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. BayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
- People v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998