37 Cal. 4th 428 - People v. Partida’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 262 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 268 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably 43 Cal. 4th 415 - People v. Lewis (2008), 39 Cal. 4th 970 - People v. Lewis (2006)
6 federal appellate · 262 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Wainwright v. Sykes · Estelle v. McGuire · Shepard v. United States · Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party cannot argue the court erred in failing to conduct an analysis it was not asked to conduct.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he chief condition and characteristic of a 'dying declaration' is the 'sense of immediately impending death' "].) Defendant concedes there was no direct evidence Mr. Eatman believed he was dying when the alleged statement was made but argues the serious nature of his injury (skull fracture ) was strong circumstantial evidence he likely believed he could be dying. We disagree. While the head injury was a serious injury, there is nothing else in the record that reasonably suggests Mr. Eatman made the statement believing he was about to die. Defendant did not identify any other applicable exception for admitting the hearsay statement. The trial court was well within its discretion in precluding admission of the record as improper hearsay. Defendant argues the evidentiary ruling excluded evidence crucial to his defense and thus amounted to a due process violation. Respondent contends the constitutional claim was forfeited because it was not raised below. Defendant concedes he did not expressly raise a constitutional argument in the trial court but urges us to find that defense counsel's arguments adequately preserved the constitutional claim. Our Supreme Court has held that reviewing courts may deem a contention cognizable on appeal where it "merely restates, under alternative legal principles, a claim otherwise identical to one that was properly preserved by a timely”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`the objection must be made in such a way as to alert the trial court to the nature of the anticipated evidence and the basis on which exclusion is sought, and to afford the People an opportunity to establish its admissibility.' [Citation.] What is important is that the objection fairly inform the trial court, as well as the party offering the evidence, of the specific reason or reasons the objecting party believes the evidence should be excluded, so the party offering the evidence can respond appropriately and the court can make a fully informed ruling. If the court overrules the objection, the objecting party may argue on appeal that the evidence should have been excluded for the reason asserted at trial, but it may not argue on appeal that the court should have excluded the evidence for a reason different from the one stated at trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.