People v. Mendenhall

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that even under the harmless error standard, “the trial court’s error in admitting parts of the investigator’s testimony did not substantially influence the verdict or affect the fairness of the trial proceedings and does not require reversal of defendant’s . . . convictions”
• declining to consider 14 “a bald legal proposition presented without argument or development”
• “We review de novo whether the mittimus accurately reflects the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).