Legal Opinion

People v. Hall

California Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 1986No. Crim. 24565PublishedCited by 258 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MOSK,J.

We granted review in this case to examine and clarify the so-called Mendez-Arline rule, which restricts the admission of defense evidence tending to show that a third party is guilty of the offense charged. (People v. Mendez (1924) 193 Cal. 39 [223 P. 65]; People v. Arline (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 200 [91 Cal.Rptr. 520].)

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and second degree robbery and burglary, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. After reviewing the relevant law and the record, we also affirm, holding that the error in excluding the proffered evidence was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. People v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  3. People v. CastroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. People v. McCaughanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Alexander v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891

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

3Cited by258 opinions

  1. Turner v. DuncanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  2. Holmes v. South CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  3. People v. FryeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  4. People v. BoyetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  5. People v. AvilaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006

253 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