48 Cal. 3d 935 - People v. Sheldon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 126 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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant contends the case must be remanded for a new hearing on the application for modification of verdict because the court considered matters from the probation report that had not been presented to the jury. After hearing argument from both sides the court ruled as follows: ‘Pursuant to Penal Code section 190.4, subsection (e), I have made an independent review of the evidence. I have taken into account and been guided by the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. “ T find that the jury’s findings and verdict are according to the law and the evidence. “ T find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. My reasons for this are as follows: That this 32-year-old defendant has shown himself to be a hostile and violent man. “ ‘He has been either incarcerated or on parole most of his adult life. And even before he reached adulthood he had such a severe problem in the community that Youth Authority confinement was needed. The records indicate that once before he was responsible for the death of another human being. “ ‘The victim was not the defendant’s enemy. He was no threat to him, but he was, rather a citizen attempting to sell a car. The community has not only suffered serious loss by reason of this poor man’s death, but his children have likewise suffered a great loss. Perhaps the greatest loss of all. “ ‘My perusal of the record does not reveal any significant or substantial mitigating circumstances that could possibly outweigh the aggr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 33 Cal. 4th 214 - People v. Lewis

2. “The judgment convicting defendant of assault with a deadly weapon is reversed. The judgment of conviction is affirmed in all other respects but the judgment of death is vacated and the cause remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of redetermining defendant's application for modification of the verdict in accordance with this opinion. If the trial court, upon application of the appropriate standards, denies the application for modification, it shall reinstate the judgment of death. If it grants the application, it shall enter a judgment of life without possibility of parole. Any subsequent appeal shall be limited to issues related to the modification application. (See People v. Rodriguez [1986] 42 Cal.3d 730, 794-795 [ 230 Cal. Rptr. 667 , 726 P.2d 113 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 7 Cal. 4th 1136 - People v. Sheldon

3. “In determining whether an instruction interferes with the jury's consideration of evidence presented at trial, we must determine `what a reasonable juror could have understood the charge as meaning.' [Citation.] While the initial focus is on the specific instruction challenged [citation], we must also review the instructions as a whole to see if the entire charge delivered a correct interpretation of law. [Citation.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 53 Cal. 3d 618 - People v. Cox