Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ... Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...
People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 284 26 People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316 43, 44 People v. Thornton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 391 21, 22, 23 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 passim People v. Wattier (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 948 26 People v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620 26 People v. Whitt (1990) 51 Cal.3d 620 26 People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307 9,31 People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153 26 People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148 23 People v. Williams (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587 29 People v. Wilson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1 21, 22, 49, 50 People v. Winslow (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 680 50 People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93 22 People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 26 xv
Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Ca1.4th 548 43 Ward v. Taggart (1959) 51 Ca1.2d 736 24 Williams v. Mariposa County Unified Sch. Dist. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 843 24 Wong v. Di Grazia (1963) 60 Ca1.2d 525 24 STATE STATUTES Penal Code, section 186.22 passim Evidence Code section 353 25 Evidence Code section 664 42 Penal Code, section 1127a 12 Penal Code section 1259 29 Penal Code, section 12022.53 passim OTHER AUTHORITIES 9 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed. 1997) 8 California Constitution 22 CALJIC 8.31 33, 36 CALJIC No. 1.00 40,41,42 CALJIC No. 2.90 41 CALJIC No. 3.01 40,41,42 CALJIC No. 6.50 38,41,42 XVI
- Page 2 and 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM
- Page 4 and 5: 2. The Pleadings Failed To NotifY A
- Page 6 and 7: VI THE JURy FAILED TO FIND THE DEGR
- Page 8 and 9: C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice
- Page 10 and 11: XIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL ISSUES
- Page 12 and 13: Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S.
- Page 14 and 15: People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4t
- Page 18 and 19: CALlIC No. 8.31 passim CALJIC No. 8
- Page 20 and 21: ARGUMENTS GUILT PHASE ISSUES I THE
- Page 22 and 23: the facts indicate that only one de
- Page 24 and 25: form finding "personal use" to have
- Page 26 and 27: 57 Cal.AppAth 871, 877; 9 Witkin, C
- Page 28 and 29: the weapon. Without again recountin
- Page 30 and 31: Respondent notes that between the m
- Page 32 and 33: In another apparent attempt to just
- Page 34 and 35: appellant has repeatedly said, the
- Page 37 and 38: not present them to the trial court
- Page 39 and 40: In People v. Knighten (1980) 105 Ca
- Page 41 and 42: Finally, it must be noted that the
- Page 43 and 44: B. The Constitutional Issues Are No
- Page 45 and 46: turn relied on the language from Wi
- Page 47 and 48: Indeed, in this case the instructio
- Page 49 and 50: as the prosecution's first-degree t
- Page 51 and 52: F. Conclusion In summary, by failin
- Page 53 and 54: As appellant explained in the openi
- Page 55 and 56: in the manner suggested by responde
- Page 57 and 58: Furthennore, it is well established
- Page 59 and 60: Appellant has explained above and i
- Page 61 and 62: Cal.App.3d 970, 992.) Instead, resp
- Page 63 and 64: 3. Appellant's Did Not Forfeit His
- Page 65 and 66: In Argument V of the Opening Brief,
Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994)<br />
8 Ca1.4th 548 43<br />
Ward v. Taggart (1959)<br />
51 Ca1.2d 736 24<br />
<strong>William</strong>s v. Mariposa County Unified Sch. Dist. (1978)<br />
82 Cal.App.3d 843 24<br />
Wong v. Di Grazia (1963)<br />
60 Ca1.2d 525 24<br />
STATE STATUTES<br />
Penal Code, section 186.22 passim<br />
Evidence Code section 353 25<br />
Evidence Code section 664 42<br />
Penal Code, section 1127a 12<br />
Penal Code section 1259 29<br />
Penal Code, section 12022.53 passim<br />
OTHER AUTHORITIES<br />
9 Witkin, <strong>California</strong> Procedure (4th ed. 1997) 8<br />
<strong>California</strong> Constitution 22<br />
CALJIC 8.31 33, 36<br />
CALJIC No. 1.00 40,41,42<br />
CALJIC No. 2.90 41<br />
CALJIC No. 3.01 40,41,42<br />
CALJIC No. 6.50 38,41,42<br />
XVI
Change language