Legal Opinion

People v. Callahan

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 16, 2004No. B167543PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PERREN, J.

Recently, the California Supreme Court held that “when a trial court, after examining all the relevant circumstances, grants a new trial in a criminal case on grounds that proven misconduct was prejudicial, that determination is not subject to independent or de novo review on appeal, but may be affirmed unless it constituted an abuse of discretion.” (People v. Ault (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1250, 1255 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 302, 95 P.3d 523] (Ault).) Although Ault concerned the grant of a new trial based on juror misconduct, we conclude that the principle of deference to orders granting a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. People v. FosselmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  3. People v. MayfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  4. People v. NeslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  5. People v. AultCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Whitlock v. FOSTER WHEELER, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. In Re NournCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. People v. Abadir CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. People v. Chico CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. People v. Conrad CA2/5California Court of Appeal · 2015

6 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