Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 CALAPP3D 757 - People v. Rubio

People v. Rubio’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
8
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

71 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 27 Cal. 3d 1 - People v. Green (1980), 46 Cal. 3d 1 - People v. Morris (1988)

71 state decisions

32019771980199020002010decided

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 10 Cal. 3d 703 - People v. Sedeno · 1 Cal. 3d 379 - People v. Mosher · 1 Cal. 3d 524 - People v. St. Martin · 1 Cal. 3d 694 - People v. Floyd · People v. Carmen

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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The giving of CALJIC No. 2.03 is justified only if there exists evidence that defendant prefabricated a story to explain his conduct. This instruction is not applicable in the situation where a defendant makes an explanation of behavior to the police which is consistent with his self-serving testimony at trial that conflicts with the prosecution’s evidence before the jury. In such a case, the instruction of necessity casts specific doubt on a defendant’s credibility as a witness and singles out defendant’s testimony as subject to more particular scrutiny than that attached to prosecution witnesses.” (People v. Rubio, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d 757, 769 .)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] trial court may properly take judicial notice of the records of any court of record of any state of the United States. [Citations.] But, as is stated in Jefferson, California Evidence Benchbook (1972) Judicial Notice, section 47.3, at page 840: `Caveat: Limitations on judicial notice of court records. What is meant by taking judicial notice of court records? There exists a mistaken notion that this means taking judicial notice of the existence of facts asserted in every document of a court file, ... a court cannot take judicial notice of hearsay allegations as being true, just because they are part of a court record or file... .'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““If you find that before this trial the defendant made a willfully false or deliberately misleading statement concerning the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider such statement as a circumstance tending to prove a consciousness of guilt. However, such conduct is not sufficient by itself to prove guilt, and its weight and significance, if any, are matters for your determination.””
    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.