Can a jury consider evidence of prior violent criminal activity even though that activity is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Easley, 187 Cal.Rptr. 745, 33 Cal.3d 65, 654 P.2d 1272 (Cal. 1982):
Ignoring the holdings of these cases, the Attorney General argues that the jury can be permitted to consider evidence of prior violent criminal activity even though that activity is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He bases his argument on the plurality opinion in People v. Frierson (1979) 25
Page 774
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does the doctrine of reasonable doubt apply to a defendant's due process right to appeal against a jury verdict that diminished the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Is a member of a street gang who actively participates in any criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in criminal gang activity liable for criminal activity? (California, United States of America)
What is the effect of prior criminal convictions on evidence of criminal activity in criminal proceedings? (California, United States of America)
Does the use of evidence of criminal street gang activity by a defendant to establish a predicate offence in a prosecution for active participation in a criminal gang constitute prejudicial or prejudicial evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the absence of lingering doubt from a recitation of evidence the defense offered in an attempt to raise reasonable doubt raise a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's prior convictions were for either serious or violent felonies? (California, United States of America)
What is the substantial evidence required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case? (California, United States of America)
What is the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a collateral review of a final criminal judgment? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances have the courts found that CALCRIM No. 220 of the California Criminal Code, or Cal.Crim No.220, is sufficient to compel a jury to find that a prosecutor must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
In reviewing a criminal conviction challenged as lacking evidentiary support, does the juvenile court have to consider the same questions in determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
