Legal Opinion

People v. Hering

California Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1999No. S070514PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BROWN, J.

In this case we must determine whether Business and Professions Code section 650 and Insurance Code section 750 require instruction on specific intent. In the abstract, both may be characterized as specific intent crimes because in certain circumstances their commission contemplates an intention to bring about future acts. Nevertheless, the conduct proscribed in the statutory definition fully incorporates the requisite mental state. We therefore decline to impose any additional instructional obligation on the trial court, unless the defendant has proffered a mental state…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. People v. BeemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  2. People v. HoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. People v. CainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  4. People v. ColantuonoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  5. People v. EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. People v. AtkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. People v. RathertCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  4. People v. FontenotCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  5. People v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

22 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