Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

PG X(I)  Standard Of Review For Failure To Instruct On Element Of Special Circumstance. 

The prejudicial effect of a trial court’s erroneous failure to instruct the jury on an element of a special circumstance allegation is measured by the Chapman “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” test.  In applying this test, the California Supreme Court has held that the conviction may be affirmed under this standard only if the evidence in support of the missing element is “overwhelming”. (See People v. Marshall (97) 15 C4th 1, 42 [61 CR2d 84].)  However, in Chapman, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly rejected California’s use of a “overwhelming evidence test” and instead utilized the standard of review elaborated on in Sullivan v. Louisiana (93) 503 US 275 [124 LEd2d 182; 113 SCt 2078].

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES