California v. Blakely
Annotate this CaseAnthony Blakely pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to assault with a deadly weapon and robbery. The jury convicted him of both counts. After the evidence was presented in the sanity phase of the trial, the court granted the State's motion for a directed verdict of sanity. Blakely appealed, contending the court erred in directing a verdict of sanity. The Court of Appeal concluded the court did not err in removing the issue of Blakely's sanity from the jury. As set forth in "California v. Severance" (138 Cal.App.4th 305 (2006), the court properly directs a verdict of sanity when a defendant fails to proffer "substantial evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found the defendant was not sane." The evidence in this case was insufficient for the jury to make such a finding.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.