People v. Gates

167 Citing cases

  1. People v. Ray

    13 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 712 times
    In Ray, supra, 13 Cal.4th 313, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 296, 914 P.2d 846, for example, we considered whether there was sufficient evidence independent of defendants’ statements to support the jury's finding that an assault had occurred during an attempted robbery.

    Nor is the defendant entitled to preclude admission of the graphic or sordid details of his factor (b) crimes by stipulating to any resulting conviction or to a sanitized version of the facts surrounding the offense. ( People v. Karis, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pp. 638-640; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 445 [ 250 Cal.Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135]; People v. Melton, supra, 44 Cal.3d 713, 754; People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1203 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301].)

  2. People v. Malone

    47 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 311 times
    Concluding error in admitting evidence under Evid. Code, § 1101 is tested by the harmless error standard of People v. Watson 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

    Defendant maintains the authority to voir dire the jury is implicit in the section, as voir dire is the only meaningful way to determine whether the jurors could consider the penalty phase evidence with open minds and not automatically vote for death by reason of the passions engendered in the first phase of trial. As we observed in People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1199 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301], there is no direct authority on the meaning of "good cause" in the context of impanelling a new penalty phase jury. Neither is there any authority concerning how good cause may be shown.

  3. Gates v. Chappell

    No. C 88-2779 WHA (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    On December 29, 1979, petitioner was arrested in Vallejo, and the gun later determined to be the one that killed Lonnie Stevenson was found on him. See People v. Gates, 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1176-78 (1987). On January 4, 1980, an indictment was filed in Alameda County.

  4. People v. Bradford

    15 Cal.4th 1229 (Cal. 1997)   Cited 1,691 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court was not required to conduct an inquiry into whether medication of defendant during trial was involuntary where defendant did not raise the issue

    ( People v. Espinoza, supra, 3 Cal.4th 806, 821.) As we observed in People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301], to establish juror misconduct, the facts must establish "'an inability to perform the functions of a juror, and that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.'" ( Id. at p. 1199; People v. Johnson,supra, 6 Cal.4th 1, 21.)

  5. People v. Morris

    53 Cal.3d 152 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 571 times
    Requiring use of peremptory challenges and dissatisfaction with jury to claim erroneous denial of challenge for cause

    Each testified in detail as to the respective facts underlying defendant's crimes. Cognizant of our prior holding that this kind of testimony is proper at the penalty phase "where it is not the fact of conviction which is probative . . . but rather the conduct of defendant which gave rise to the offense" ( People v. Gates (1988) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1203 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301]), defendant advances a battery of constitutional arguments against consideration of the underlying facts of prior crimes at the penalty phase. (47) Initially, defendant argues that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by consideration at the penalty phase of what he calls stale evidence of his prior crimes.

  6. Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Broomfield

    491 F. Supp. 3d 485 (N.D. Cal. 2020)

    In 1981, Oscar Gates was convicted, inter alia , of first-degree murder accompanied by the robbery-murder special circumstance and received a death sentence, all affirmed on appeal. People v. Gates , 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1176, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301 (1987). He now seeks a writ of habeas corpus and, in support of that effort, requests an evidentiary hearing on several claims presented in his petition.

  7. People v. Clark

    52 Cal.4th 856 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 1,305 times
    Holding that because the jury was instructed to ignore the improper question, there was little risk the jury made improper inferences from defendant's silence

    This court has considered and rejected similar challenges to a trial judge's refusal to impanel a new jury or question jurors about midtrial exposure to newspaper articles. Our decision in People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301 ( Gates ), is particularly instructive. In Gates, as here, the defense moved for a new jury after the jury rendered its guilt phase verdicts.

  8. People v. Wright

    52 Cal.3d 367 (Cal. 1990)   Cited 322 times
    In People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, our Supreme Court held "[i]t is clear that knowledge of the composition of the entire panel can be relevant to the informed exercise of a peremptory challenge against a particular juror."

    (44) Defendant correctly asserts that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte that it could not consider the other-crimes evidence unless the commission of such crimes had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Robertson, supra, 33 Cal.3d 21 [1977 death penalty law]; see People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1202 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301] [1978 death penalty law].) In particular, he argues that the failure to give the "reasonable doubt" instruction permitted the jury to improperly consider three different incidents: (1) the false imprisonment and robbery related to the Maruyama burglary; (2) the "possible" assault on the prison classification committee members, including Nyberg (where defendant threw the chair); and (3) the "possible" battery on San Quentin Prison kitchen worker Teri Gelatini.

  9. People v. Adcox

    47 Cal.3d 207 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 245 times
    In People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, our Supreme Court found "a single fatal shot to the back of the head of the unarmed victim from a distance of six to ten feet as he kneeled, baiting his fishhook" was evidence that the shooting was planned in advance.

    These comments were not misconduct. As in People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1201 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301], the prosecutor "did not say that the jury could not consider any mercy or sympathy factors which were supported by the evidence." (Compare People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 58 [ 188 Cal.Rptr. 77, 655 P.2d 279].)

  10. People v. Brown

    46 Cal.3d 432 (Cal. 1988)   Cited 257 times
    Holding that "instructions and counsel's arguments thereon viewed as a whole, sufficiently informed the penalty phase jury it could consider a mental condition of the defendant which, though not characterized as extreme, would potentially mitigate the circumstances of the offense"

    Our review of the record discloses the evidence was argued under factor (b), not factor (c). As we recently held in People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1203 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301], the People may properly present evidence showing the circumstances of the prior violent criminal activity. Defendant next urges that evidence of the Florida aggravated battery should not have been allowed because the minimum elements of the foreign felony conviction would not have proved a California felony at the time the felony was committed.