InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Carella v. California

491 U.S. 263 · No. 87-6997 · 1988 term · Rehnquist Court

Decided Jun 15, 1989 · argued Apr 26, 1989

Criminal procedure · Extra-legal jury influences: jury instructions

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Reversed and remanded. Carella won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the California appellate court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Carella was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Wikipedia has no article on this case, so there is no summary.

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1988 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanBlackmunStevensWhiteKennedyO'ConnorScaliaRehnquist

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
CarellaPerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
Respondent
CaliforniaState (California)
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (due process)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 15, 1989DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Carella won.
  2. Apr 26, 1989ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the California appellate court: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California trial court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

33 other argued cases since 1946 on extra-legal jury influences: jury instructions, newest first.

  1. Conrad M. Black, John A. Boultbee, and Mark S. Kipnis v. United States561 U.S. 465Jun 24, 2010 · 561 U.S. 465Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  2. Doug Waddington, Superintendent, Washington Corrections Center v. Cesar Sarausad555 U.S. 179Jan 21, 2009 · 555 U.S. 179Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  3. Anthony Hedgpeth, Warden v. Michael Robert Pulido555 U.S. 57Dec 2, 2008 · 555 U.S. 57Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  4. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States544 U.S. 696May 31, 2005 · 544 U.S. 696Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  5. William Arthur Kelly v. South Carolina534 U.S. 246Jan 9, 2002 · 534 U.S. 246Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  6. Wesley Aaron Shafer, Jr. v. South Carolina532 U.S. 36Mar 20, 2001 · 532 U.S. 36Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  7. Ellis E. Neder, Jr. v. United States527 U.S. 1Jun 10, 1999 · 527 U.S. 1Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  8. Terry Lee Shannon v. United States512 U.S. 573Jun 24, 1994 · 512 U.S. 573Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  9. Jonathan Dale Simmons v. South Carolina512 U.S. 154Jun 17, 1994 · 512 U.S. 154Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  10. Clarence Victor v. Nebraska511 U.S. 1Mar 22, 1994 · 511 U.S. 1Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  11. John Sullivan v. Louisiana508 U.S. 275Jun 1, 1993 · 508 U.S. 275Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  12. Wayne Estelle, Warden v. Mark Owen McGuire502 U.S. 62Dec 4, 1991 · 502 U.S. 62Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
  13. Dale Robert Yates v. Parker Evatt, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.500 U.S. 391May 28, 1991 · 500 U.S. 391Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  14. Mills v. Maryland486 U.S. 367Jun 6, 1988 · 486 U.S. 367Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  15. California v. Brown479 U.S. 538Jan 27, 1987 · 479 U.S. 538Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  16. Rose, Warden v. Clark478 U.S. 570Jul 2, 1986 · 478 U.S. 570Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  17. Francis, Warden v. Franklin471 U.S. 307Apr 29, 1985 · 471 U.S. 307Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  18. James v. Kentucky466 U.S. 341Apr 18, 1984 · 466 U.S. 341Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
  19. Koehler, Warden v. Engle466 U.S. 1Mar 26, 1984 · 466 U.S. 1Criminal procedure4–45–4 band
  20. Connecticut v. Johnson460 U.S. 73Feb 23, 1983 · 460 U.S. 73Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  21. Sandstrom v. Montana442 U.S. 510Jun 18, 1979 · 442 U.S. 510Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  22. Kentucky v. Whorton441 U.S. 786May 21, 1979 · 441 U.S. 786Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  23. Taylor v. Kentucky436 U.S. 478May 30, 1978 · 436 U.S. 478Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  24. Henderson, Correctional Superintendent v. Kibbe431 U.S. 145May 16, 1977 · 431 U.S. 145Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  25. Cupp, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Naughten414 U.S. 141Dec 4, 1973 · 414 U.S. 141Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  26. United States v. Bishop412 U.S. 346May 29, 1973 · 412 U.S. 346Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  27. Frazier v. Cupp, Warden394 U.S. 731Apr 22, 1969 · 394 U.S. 731Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band

  28. Johnson v. Bennett, Warden393 U.S. 253Dec 16, 1968 · 393 U.S. 253Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  29. Spencer v. Texas385 U.S. 554Jan 23, 1967 · 385 U.S. 554Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  30. Jenkins v. United States380 U.S. 445Apr 5, 1965 · 380 U.S. 445Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  31. Sansone v. United States380 U.S. 343Mar 29, 1965 · 380 U.S. 343Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
  32. Gibson v. Lockheed Aircraft Service, Inc.350 U.S. 356Feb 27, 1956 · 350 U.S. 356Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  33. Andres v. United States333 U.S. 740Apr 26, 1948 · 333 U.S. 740Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia and the argument audio on Oyez. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.