party forfeits any challenge in California

2026“Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.] The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law [citation], or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. [Citations.]” (People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 (Franco).) Because Sanchez maintains that the challenged instruction is not a correct statement of law, we may address his claim despite his failure to object.

2026“Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.]” (People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 .) However, a defendant need not assert an objection to preserve a contention of instructional error when the error affects the defendant’s “substantial rights.” (Pen.

2024(See People v. Hudson, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 1011-1012 53. [by failing to object, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence].) V.

2019Forfeiture “Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.] The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law [citation], or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. [Citations.] ‘ “Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim—at least to the extent of ascertaining

2024Standard of Review “Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.] The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, . . . if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 (Franco).) “‘Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim—at least to the extent of ascertaining whether t

2019Forfeiture “Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.] The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law [citation], or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. [Citations.] ‘ “Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim—at least to the extent of ascertaining

2023(Anderson, at p. 639.) “Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.] The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law [citation], or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 .) In determining whether a defendant’s substantial rights were affected by a claimed instructional error, “[t]he question is whether the error resulted

2020Montgomery acknowledges he did not object to the challenged instructions at trial. “ ‘Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in 7 the trial court.’ [Citation.]” (People v. McPheeters (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 124, 132 .) Montgomery, however, argues these issues are cognizable because they affect his substantial rights. (§ 1259.) California courts have equated “substantial rights” with reversible error under the test stated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 .

2024(People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002 , 1011-1012; see People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1051 [“If defendant believed the instruction was incomplete or misleading, he ‘had the obligation to request clarifying language’ ”].) This rule does not apply if the instruction was an incorrect statement of law (Hudson, at p. 1012), nor does it apply if the instructional error affected appellant’s substantial rights (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1087 ).

2021(People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012 ; see People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1051 [“If defendant believed the instruction was incomplete or misleading, he ‘had the obligation to request clarifying language’ ”].) This rule does not apply if the instruction was an incorrect statement of law (Hudson, at p. 1012), nor does it apply if the 10 instructional error affected defendant’s substantial rights (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1087 ).

2020(People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1170 [CALCRIM No. 1403 correctly states the law and the evidence justified inclusion of the optional motive and witness credibility paragraphs; because there was no error in giving the instruction, any objection would have been overruled, there is no reasonable probability that an objection would have led to a different result, and the defendant failed to establish 59 presumed to understand, follow, and apply the instructions to the facts of the case before them.” (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1229 , disapproved on another gro

2014Again, “a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court” unless “the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law [citation], or . . . if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (Franco, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 719 ; accord People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 25 1163 [a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was flawed unless the party requested appropriate clarifying or ampl

2014(See Green, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 544 [“section 11366 does not require that the place be maintained for the purpose of selling; it can be violated without selling, merely by providing a place for drug abusers to gather and share their experience”].) Neither Shoals, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 492 , Hawkins, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 683 , nor Vera, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1102-1103, supports defendant’s argument that a violation of section 11366 requires that the place intended to be provided to others for the prohibited purposes of selling, giving away, or using illegal drugs, be

2014(See Green, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 544 [“section 11366 does not require that the place be maintained for the purpose of selling; it can be violated without selling, merely by providing a place for drug abusers to gather and share their experience”].) Neither Shoals, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 492 , Hawkins, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 683 , nor Vera, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1102-1103, supports defendant’s argument that a violation of section 11366 requires that the place intended to be provided to others for the prohibited purposes of selling, giving away, or using illegal drugs, be

2021This is because stalking based on following—as opposed to harassing—requires that the offender “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows” the victim, meaning on more than one occasion. (§ 646.9, subd. (a); CALCRIM No. 1301 [“Repeatedly means more than once.”].) Viveiros contends the unanimity instruction suggests that “at least one act” of following Amy was enough. “ ‘Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court.’ ” (People v. McPheeters (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 124, 13

2020Montgomery acknowledges he did not object to the challenged instructions at trial. “ ‘Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in 7 the trial court.’ [Citation.]” (People v. McPheeters (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 124, 132 .) Montgomery, however, argues these issues are cognizable because they affect his substantial rights. (§ 1259.) California courts have equated “substantial rights” with reversible error under the test stated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 .

2025(See Vance, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 162 [“when an appellate opinion is admitted at an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6, without objection,” a party forfeits any challenge to the superior court’s consideration of the opinion]; People v. Myles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 688 , 696 [defendant forfeited his challenge to admissibility of evidence admitted at evidentiary hearing under former section 1170.95 by failing to object]; Evid.

2024(See People v. Vance (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 706 , 714 [“when an appellate opinion is admitted at an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6, without objection,” a party forfeits any challenge to the superior court’s consideration of the opinion]; People v. Myles (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 688 , 696 [defendant forfeited his challenge to admissibility of evidence admitted at evidentiary hearing under former section 1170.95 by failing to object].) In any event, to the extent the superior court erred in considering the opinion in Brown, any error was harmless.

2023(Anderson, at p. 639.) “Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.] The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, if the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law [citation], or if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 .) In determining whether a defendant’s substantial rights were affected by a claimed instructional error, “[t]he question is whether the error resulted

2014Again, “a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court” unless “the instruction was an incorrect statement of the law [citation], or . . . if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (Franco, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 719 ; accord People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148 , 25 1163 [a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was flawed unless the party requested appropriate clarifying or ampl

2025(People v. Barker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1089 [Evid.

2024Standard of Review “Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.] The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, . . . if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 (Franco).) “‘Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim—at least to the extent of ascertaining whether t

2024Standard of Review “Generally, a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court. [Citations.] The rule of forfeiture does not apply, however, . . . if the instructional error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 (Franco).) “‘Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim—at least to the extent of ascertaining whether t

2024Applicable Law “The trial court must give instructions on every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence, including defenses that are not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.” (Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1200 .) “ ‘ “Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury,’ that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive.” ’ ” (People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1215 ; Crew, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 835 [“Substantial evidence is evidence of reasonable, credible value”].) A party forfeits any challenge to a jury instr

2024Applicable Law “The trial court must give instructions on every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence, including defenses that are not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.” (Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1200 .) “ ‘ “Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury,’ that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive.” ’ ” (People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1215 ; Crew, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 835 [“Substantial evidence is evidence of reasonable, credible value”].) A party forfeits any challenge to a jury instr

2024Even where the superior court relies on improper evidence when 20 denying a petition under section 1172.6, “reversal is not required unless it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the evidence been excluded.” (People v. Myles, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 706; see People v. Vance, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th, at p. 714 [harmless error standard in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 applies to claim that superior court improperly considered an appellate opinion at the evidentiary hearing]; see also People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 29 [“the Watson

2021In evaluating the propriety of the instructions, we “consider the instructions as a whole as well as the entire record of trial, including the arguments of counsel. [Citation.] If reasonably possible, instructions are interpreted to support the judgment rather than defeat it.” (Ibid; see also People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 ; quoting People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 539 [“The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” (cleaned up)]; People v. Fiu (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 360 , 370–371

2021In evaluating the propriety of the instructions, we “consider the instructions as a whole as well as the entire record of trial, including the arguments of counsel. [Citation.] If reasonably possible, instructions are interpreted to support the judgment rather than defeat it.” (Ibid; see also People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 ; quoting People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 539 [“The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” (cleaned up)]; People v. Fiu (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 360 , 370–371