California Codes
Cal. Penal Code § 1138 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be any disagreement between them as to the testimony, or if they desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case, they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon being brought into court, the information required must be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the prosecuting attorney, and the defendant or his counsel, or after they have been called.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1885–2026 · leading case: People v. Huggins, 131 P.3d 995 (Cal. 2006).
People v. Huggins, 131 P.3d 995 (Cal. 2006). “) The jury's question shows that it was deadlocked on whether the shooting of Lees was accidental or intentional, and it wanted to know whether it could find an intent to kill based on defendant's conduct after shooting Lees, when instead of "tending to [her] best interest,"…”
People v. Cox, 70 P.3d 277 (Cal. 2003). “[7] Penal Code section 1138 provides, in relevant part: "After the jury has retired for deliberation, if there be any disagreement between them as to the testimony, .”
People v. Dagnino, 80 Cal. App. 3d 981 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). “Penal Code section 1138. "After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be any disagreement between them as to the testimony, or if they desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case, they must require the officer to conduct them into court.”
People v. Waidla, 996 P.2d 46 (Cal. 2000). “” (Pen. Code, § 1138.) But it is not required so to instruct on any “point of law” merely associated therewith.”
People v. Ross, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” (Pen. Code, § 1138.) The meaning of “mutual combat” was clearly a “point of law arising in the case,” and one on which the jury explicitly sought guidance.”
People v. Yarbrough, 169 Cal. App. 4th 303 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “) Penal Code section 1138 does not demand elaboration upon the standard instructions by the trial court when the jury expresses confusion, but rather directs the court to “consider how it can best aid the jury and decide whether further explanation is desirable, or whether the…”
People v. Garcia, 115 P.3d 1191 (Cal. 2005). “) Moreover, although the literal language of the statute further provides that "the information required [by the jury] must be given in the presence of, or after notice to, the prosecuting attorney, and the defendant or his counsel, or after they have been called " (italics…”
People v. Hawthorne, 841 P.2d 118 (Cal. 1992). “Communication between judge and jury during deliberations without affording defendant and counsel an opportunity to be present impinges on a defendant’s constitutional right to the assistance of counsel.”
Dixon v. State, 605 P.2d 882 (Alaska 1980). “647 (1975) ( Cal. Penal Code § 1138 providing jury right to review evidence).”
People v. Frandsen, 196 Cal. App. 4th 266 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “3d 520 ]; Pen. Code, § 1138.) Accordingly, the court’s authority to give the additional instructions *276 was clear.”
People v. Allen, 77 Cal. App. 3d 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). “14 Penal Code section 1138 is as follows: “After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be any disagreement between them as to the testimony, or if they desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case, they must require the officer to conduct them into…”
People v. Neufer, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8840 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). “"`Penal Code section 1138 requires that any questions posed by the jury regarding the law or the evidence be answered in open court in the presence of the accused and his or her counsel, unless presence is waived.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.