How this document has been cited
The right of confrontation, though "fundamental", has been held not to be included within the "due process of law" guarantee of article I, section 13 of the California constitution.
- in Notes and Recent Decisions and 4 similar citations
I, § 13, nor are the provisions of the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States concerning the right of an accused person to be confronted with the witnesses against him applicable.
- in Deering's Penal code of the State of California: adopted February 14, 1872 … and 2 similar citations
See CAL. CONST. art. VI, § 2 (1879)(emphasis added): "[Wihere a cause has been allotted to one of the departments, and a judgment pronounced thereon, the order must be made within 30 days after such judgment, and if so made it shall have the effect to vacate and set aside the judgment.
- in The California Supreme Court and Selective Review and one similar citation
—"the constitutional provision [article I, section 13]... refers only to `an ordinary extra-judicial deposition, taken, as it is called, de bene esse.'In view of the decisions upon the subject, the matter should be considered finally settled. "
- in People v. Municipal Court (Runyan), 1978 and one similar citation
There is no merit to this contention.(2) It is settled that the constitutional prohibition referred to has no bearing on the admission of evidence taken at a preliminary hearing
- in People v. Williams, 1973 and one similar citation
In fact, on this basis, without reference to whether confrontation is a part of due process, subsection 3 had been repeatedly held constitutional
- in People v. Valdez, 1947 and one similar citation
—testimony of witnesses as to sanity held rightly rejected because they were not "intimate acquaintances";
- in Notes on the California Reports: Supplementary to the 1906 Edition of Notes … and one similar citation
We also concluded that, following resolution of a cause within the original appellate jurisdiction of the District Court of Appeal, our constitutionally authorized transfer of the cause to this court operated to vacate the decision of the District Court of Appeal
- in Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc., 2000 and one similar citation
The evidence offered by Dr. Blak that defendant was angry, experienced rage, wanted to harm Jennifer, suffered a loss of moral restraint, could not control himself, and felt an irresistible impulse to kill her was evidence that defendant was sane at the time of the shooting
Some cases leave out the element of "nature and quality,” and make the test simply capacity to distinguish between right and wrong as to the act charged.
Cited by
3 P. 3d 286 - Cal: Supreme Court 2000
82 Cal. App. 2d 744 - Cal: Court of Appeal 1947
Cal: Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate Dist. 2011
E Duval -
RD Sosnick - Calif. L. Rev., 1984
668 P. 2d 738 - Cal: Supreme Court 1983
574 P. 2d 425 - Cal: Supreme Court 1978
[CITATION] Los Angeles Lawyer
Los Angeles County Bar Association… - (No Title), 1978
506 P. 2d 998 - Cal: Supreme Court 1973
[CITATION] Southern California Law Review
University of Southern California … - 1950