Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Sandoval

California Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 2015No. S115872Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CHIN, J.,

Concurring and Dissenting.—Although I concur in the judgment affirming defendant’s convictions, enhancements, and sentence, for reasons explained below, I do not agree that we should vacate the lying-in-wait special circumstance. Nor do I agree that the trial court erred in precluding defense counsel from making erroneous and inaccurate statements to the jury regarding a sentence of life without possibility of parole, i.e., that the sentence “means that you will never get out” and that defendant “will spend the rest of his life in a California maximum security prison.” I also do not…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. People v. HoltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  2. People v. MoonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  3. People v. AshmusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  4. People v. KippCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  5. People v. FierroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

18 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