Does a "routine application of state evidentiary law" not implicate a defendant's constitutional rights?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Thompson, 1 Cal.5th 1043, 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 667, 384 P.3d 693 (Cal. 2016):
constitutional claims. " 'The "routine application of state evidentiary law does not implicate [a] defendant's constitutional rights." [Citation.] As defendant provides no elaboration or separate argument for these constitutional claims, we decline to address further these boilerplate contentions.' " (People v. Mills, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 194, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 153, 226 P.3d 276.)
9. Alleged Griffin Error
"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 "routine application of state evidentiary law" do not implicate a defendant's constitutional rights? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have a constitutional right to challenge the findings of a state evidentiary law review? (California, United States of America)
What waiver of appeal rights apply to a criminal defendant who knowingly waives any significant right such as constitutional rights? (California, United States of America)
What are the implications of a defendant's failure to bring a motion for a hearing on a Defendant's Miranda rights claim? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a defendant's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to due process of law because the trial court relieved the prosecution of its burden of establishing that defendant acted with malice? (California, United States of America)
Does a prosecutor's comments about sexual assault violate a defendant's federal and state constitutional rights? (California, United States of America)
What is the scope and application of the state constitutional right of privacy? (California, United States of America)
Does a prosecutor who makes a statement before a jury that touches on one defendant's right to silence and representation constitute a constitutional violation? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard for determining whether a defendant's state constitutional right to an impartial jury was violated by an excusal for cause? (California, United States of America)
Does section 1109 of the Federal and State constitutions violate a defendant's right to due process? (California, United States of America)
