Legal Opinion

People v. Nunez

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 25, 2012No. B235203PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

VEGAN, J.

This appeal concerns the M’Naghten insanity test (M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Clark & Fin. 200, 210 [8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722]) and the Legislature’s proscription against multiple punishment as specified in Penal Code section 654.1 This is an intersection that legal scholars may find interesting. If a defendant has been convicted of multiple offenses but was legally insane at the time of the offenses, how does a sentencing judge or an appellate court determine his “intent and objective” in setting a maximum period of potential confinement? Such a defendant is incapable of knowing…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Clark v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  3. People v. TriggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. People v. CorreaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  5. People v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. People v. MitchellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  2. In re Isabella C. CA2/1California Court of Appeal · 2020
  3. People v. Butts CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. People v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
  5. People v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024

3 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