Legal Opinion

People v. Anzalone

California Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 2013No. S192536PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CORRIGAN, J.

Penal Code section 1149 provides, “When the jury appear they must be asked by the Court, or Clerk, whether they have agreed upon their verdict, and if the foreman answers in the affirmative, they must, on being required, declare the same.” Here, the court failed to follow this mandated procedure. The case turns on whether the error is structural error, and thus reversible per se, or trial error subject to harmless error review. For the reasons set forth below, the error was not structural. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 22,…

2Cases cited62 opinions

  1. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. People v. BlackburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  2. People v. GonzalezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  3. People v. SivongxxayCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015

42 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