Citation network
Boyde Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 370 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 370 (1990) Boyde v. CaliforniaSearch
-
of the death penalty's appropriateness is foreclosed by Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Cal.3d at 253, 250 Cal.Rptr. at 106, 758 P.2d at 48 (quoting People v. BrownSearch
-
See Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
petitioner's claim at length, because we conclude that it is foreclosed by our decision earlier this Term in Blystone v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
and give effect to all relevant mitigating evidence Page 494 U. S. 378 offered by petitioner. See Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
Penry, supra. In assessing the affect of a challenged jury instruction, we follow the familiar rule stated in Cupp v. NaughtenSearch
-
to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge. Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
to restrict impermissibly a jury's consideration of relevant evidence is less than clear from our cases. In Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
Id. at 471 U. S. 315 -316 (emphasis added). See also Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
U. S. 379 to apply the Francis standard, have not adhered strictly to that formulation. In California v. BrownSearch
-
have done. And two Terms ago in Mills v. MarylandSearch
-
emphasis added). Other opinions in the area likewise have produced a variety of tests and standards. See, e.g., Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Andres v. UnitedSearch
-
the unconstitutionality of any of the theories requires that the conviction be set aside. See, e.g., Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Leary v. UnitedSearch
-
Bachellar v. MarylandSearch
-
of character in the face of these obstacles. But as we explained last Page 494 U. S. 382 Term in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Penry, supra, at 492 U. S. 319 (quoting California v. BrownSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
to cure statutes or instructions which clearly directed the sentencer to disregard evidence. See, e.g., Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
the latter, we have often recognized, are viewed as definitive and binding statements of the law. See Carter v. KentuckySearch
-
Quercia v. UnitedSearch
-
Starr v. UnitedSearch
-
Arguments of counsel which misstate the law are subject to objection and to correction by the court. E.g., Greer v. MillerSearch
-
United States v. YoungSearch
-
Donnelly v. DeChristoforoSearch
-
In People v. EasleySearch
-
Id. at 878, n. 10, 196 Cal.Rptr. at 322, n. 10, 671 P.2d at 826 n. 10 (quoting Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
In People v. BrownSearch
-
a defendant must demonstrate that the evidence would more likely than not lead to a different outcome. See INS v. AbuduSearch
-
and that the jury must be able to consider that evidence as a mitigating circumstance under our decision in Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
Page 494 U. S. 387 Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
U. S. 304 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.) (quoting Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. AsheSearch
-
interpret the instructions in an unconstitutional manner. See, Page 494 U. S. 388 e.g., Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
long shared this Court's assessment that death is qualitatively different from all other punishments, see Spaziano v. FloridaSearch
-
Page 494 U. S. 389 the jury that it could consider evidence of a defendant's background and character, see People v. EasleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial