Legal Opinion
People v. PILSTER
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 27, 2006No. G035130PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ARONSON, J.
A jury convicted James Jay Pilster of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) At trial, the prosecutor used defendant’s prearrest statements to an investigating officer to impeach his testimonial account of the alleged crime. Because the interviewing officer failed to provide him with Miranda warnings even though he was handcuffed during the interview, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury that they could consider his prearrest statements only on the issue of his credibility, per CALJIC No. 2.13.1. We…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Dunaway v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- People v. KopatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- People v. DavidsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- People v. I.F. (In re I.F.), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- People v. BejasaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- People v. Antonio B.California Court of Appeal · 2008
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.