People v. Forbes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If you find the defendant in this case guilty-of murder of the first degree, you must then determine if one or more of the following special circumstances are true or not true: murder perpetrated by a destructive device and murder in the commission of arson. “The People have the burden of proving the truth of a special circumstance. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether a special circumstance is true, you must find it to be not true. “// you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was either the actual killer, a co-conspirator, or an aider or abetter, but you are unable to decide which, then you must also find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended either to kill a human being or with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the actual killer to aid and abet another in the killing of a human being in order to find the special circumstance to be true. On the other hand, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the actual killer, you need not find that the defendant intended to kill a human being in order to find the special circumstance to be true. “You must decide separately each special circumstance alleged in this case. If you cannot agree as to all of the special circumstances, but can agree as to one, you must make your finding as to the one upon which you do agree. “In order to find a special circumstance alleged in this case to be true or untrue, you must agree unanimously. “You will state your special finding as to wheth”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Cal. App. 4th 1088 - People v. Snead

2. “Where the evidence shows more than one act which could constitute the charged offense and the prosecution does not elect to rely on any one such act, a unanimity instruction is usually required. ( People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263 , 280-282 ...; see, e.g., CALJIC No. 17.01.) However, such instruction has uniformly been held unnecessary where a single charged offense is submitted to the jury on alternative legal theories of culpability, a common example being where a charge of first degree murder is supported on alternate theories of felony murder or willful, deliberate and premeditated killing. (Pen. Code, § 189.) It is held sufficient that each juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense as that offense is defined by statute. ( People v. Milan (1973) 9 Cal.3d 185 , 195 ..., reaffirming People v. Nye (1965) 63 Cal.2d 166 , 173 ... (cert. den. (1966) 384 U.S. 1026 ...); People v. Guerra (1985) 40 Cal.3d 377 , 386 ...; People v. Nicholas (1980) 112 Cal. App.3d 249, 272-273 ....) An aider and abettor is defined by California statute as a principal in the offense equally guilty with the perpetrator. (Pen. Code, §§ 30-31; People v. Terry (1970) 2 Cal.3d 362, 401 ....) It follows that jurors need not unanimously agree by which statute the defendant attains his status as a principal in the crime. There was no error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Vargas

3. “that it was error for the court not to instruct on its own motion that the jurors must unanimously agree on which of two theories — direct perpetration or aiding and abetting — they relied in finding him guilty of murder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Vargas