39 Cal. 3d 346 - People v. Ramkeesoon’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably 1 Cal. 4th 495 - People v. Kelly (1992), 46 Cal. 3d 1 - People v. Morris (1988)
3 federal appellate · 129 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 Keeble v. United States · 10 Cal. 3d 703 - People v. Sedeno · People v. Green · 32 Cal. 3d 307 - People v. Wickersham · 27 Cal. 3d 1 - People v. Green
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that the trial court is obligated to instruct on necessarily included offenses — even without a request — when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present and there is evidence that would justify a conviction of such a lesser offense.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“`unwarranted all or nothing choice' [citation] on both the robbery and murder counts [fn. omitted] ... since [Ramkeesoon] had admitted taking Mullins' property and robbery was the only available theft offense. The findings of robbery and murder did not necessarily resolve the factual question whether the intent to steal was formulated after [Ramkeesoon] had inflicted the fatal blows because the jury was never required to decide specifically whether [Ramkeesoon] had formed the intent to steal after the assault. [Fn. omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“in some circumstances it is possible to determine that although an instruction on a lesser included offense was erroneously omitted, the factual question posed by the omitted instruction was necessarily resolved adversely to the defendant under other, properly given instructions. In such cases the issue should not be deemed to have been removed from the jury's consideration since it has been resolved in another context, and there can be no prejudice to the defendant since the evidence that would support a finding that only a lesser offense has been committed has been rejected by the jury.”
1 later decision 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.