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

Brief Bank # B-664 (Re: PG X(E)(3)  Helpful Rules and Standards For Showing Prejudice — Cumulative Prejudice].)

CAVEAT:  The file below was not prepared by FORECITE.  FORECITE has not made any attempt to review or edit this material and is not responsible for its content or format.  FORECITE cannot guarantee the information is complete, accurate or up-to-date. You are advised to conduct your own independent, comprehensive research on all issues addressed in the material below.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Crim.  B000000

Plaintiff and Respondent,

(Los Angeles County

Superior Court

No. TA00000)

v.

JOHN DOE

Defendant and Appellant.

____________________________________/

APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT

OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Honorable Rose Hom, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

JANET J. GRAY

ATTORNEY AT LAW

STATE BAR NO. 99723

P.O. Box 51962

Pacific Grove, CA 93950

(408) 375-6263

Attorney for Appellant


C.            Conviction Is Also Reversible On Cumulative Error Principle

Finally, if this court determines that no single error is individually prejudicial, appellant contends that the total effect of the errors combined to prejudice appellant’s right to a fair trial.  When a case is close, a small degree of error in the lower court should, on appeal, be considered enough to have influenced the jury to wrongfully convict the appellant.  (People v. Wagner (1975) 13 Cal.3d 612, 621; People v Collins (1968) 68 Cal.2d 319, 332.)  Additionally, in a close case, the cumulative effect of errors may constitute a miscarriage of justice.  (People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 726; People v. Zerillo (1950) 36 Cal.2d 222, 233; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 334; People v. Guzman (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 380, 388; and see United States v. McAlister (9th Cir., 1979) 608 F.2d 785.)

The combined effect of instructional errors and/or evidentiary errors may create cumulative prejudice.  (See, People v. McGreen (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 504, 519-520; People v. Buffum, supra, 40 Cal.2d at p. 726; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 798.)

Moreover, when errors of federal constitutional magnitude combine with non-constitutional errors, all errors should be reviewed under a Chapman standard.  (People v. Williams (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d, 58-59; see also In re Rodriguez (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 457, 469-470.)  Cumulative errors may so infect “the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.”  (Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 642-643.; Greer v. Miller (1987) 483 U.S. 756, 764.)

Appellant respectfully requests that his conviction be reversed.

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