Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
38 California opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2026 18 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2026The trial court erred in giving CALCRIM No. 580 to the jury as worded. “ ‘ “ In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” ’ ” (People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1172 .) We need not 28 determine whether the instructional error here is subject to the People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , “reasonably probable” standard or the more stringent federal harmless 2026(Cooper, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 742.) When such an instructional error occurs, we assess prejudice under the federal harmless error standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 . | 6 | 30 |
People v. Aledamatgreen2 sentences2023(See, e.g., In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 , 580 (Lopez); People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824, 831 (Merritt).) 11 Under the federal harmless error standard, “[t]he reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless after, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3 (Aledamat); see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 [asking “[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the d 2023(See, e.g., In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 , 580 (Lopez); People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824, 831 (Merritt).) 11 Under the federal harmless error standard, “[t]he reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless after, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3 (Aledamat); see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 [asking “[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the d | 3 | 4 |
People v. Floodgreen2 sentences2023For example, harmless error may be demonstrated by showing that, in rendering a verdict, the jury “necessarily found the defendant guilty on a proper theory.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1131 (Guiton); see also People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 506 [noting that instructional error is harmless where “the jury necessarily found the omitted element in connection with other findings required by the instructions”].) However, a reviewing court need not determine with “ ‘absolute certainty’ ” what a jury found in rendering a verdict (Hedgpeth v. Pulido (2008) 555 U.S. 57, 62 ) or, i 2015A trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is subject to federal harmless error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ]. ( Wilkins, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 348-350; People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 503-504 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ]; Esquivel, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399 .) “Instructional error regarding the elements of the offense requires reversal of the judgment unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” (People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal | 2 | 3 |
People v. Chunred2 sentences2023(See, e.g., In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 , 580 (Lopez); People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824, 831 (Merritt).) 11 Under the federal harmless error standard, “[t]he reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless after, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3 (Aledamat); see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 [asking “[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the d 2023(See, e.g., In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 , 580 (Lopez); People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824, 831 (Merritt).) 11 Under the federal harmless error standard, “[t]he reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless after, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3 (Aledamat); see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 [asking “[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the d | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2022(See People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 352 [applying the federal harmless error standard to a failure to instruct on the elements of target offenses].) This issue was addressed almost 80 years ago in People v. Corral (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 66 . 2022(See People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 352 [applying the federal harmless error standard to a failure to instruct on the elements of target offenses].) This issue was addressed almost 80 years ago in People v. Corral (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 66 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Watsongreen2 sentences2026The trial court erred in giving CALCRIM No. 580 to the jury as worded. “ ‘ “ In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” ’ ” (People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1172 .) We need not 28 determine whether the instructional error here is subject to the People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , “reasonably probable” standard or the more stringent federal harmless 2024(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 836–837 (Watson) [state law error measured under reasonable probability standard]; People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 999 [evidentiary ruling “if erroneous, is ‘an error of law merely,’ which is governed by the standard of review announced in [Watson]”]; People v. Jeffrey G. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 501, 510 [applying Watson standard to alleged Sanchez violation].)2 Any prejudice from the court limiting Dr. Williams’s 2 James asserts error under the federal harmless error standard in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman). | 1 | 5 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2023(See, e.g., In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 , 580 (Lopez); People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824, 831 (Merritt).) 11 Under the federal harmless error standard, “[t]he reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless after, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3 (Aledamat); see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 [asking “[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the d 2023(See, e.g., In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 , 580 (Lopez); People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824, 831 (Merritt).) 11 Under the federal harmless error standard, “[t]he reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless after, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3 (Aledamat); see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 [asking “[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the d | 1 | 2 |
People v. Guitongreen2 sentences2023For example, harmless error may be demonstrated by showing that, in rendering a verdict, the jury “necessarily found the defendant guilty on a proper theory.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1131 (Guiton); see also People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 506 [noting that instructional error is harmless where “the jury necessarily found the omitted element in connection with other findings required by the instructions”].) However, a reviewing court need not determine with “ ‘absolute certainty’ ” what a jury found in rendering a verdict (Hedgpeth v. Pulido (2008) 555 U.S. 57, 62 ) or, i 2022(People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 .) It is well settled that a court errs when it gives “an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, 6 has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) Defendant appears to argue we review this error under the federal harmless error standard because it deprived her of consideration of her defense and removed the issue from the jury’s consideration. | 1 | 2 |
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2015A trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is subject to federal harmless error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ]. ( Wilkins, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 348-350; People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 503-504 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ]; Esquivel, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399 .) “Instructional error regarding the elements of the offense requires reversal of the judgment unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” (People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal 2015A trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is subject to federal harmless error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ]. ( Wilkins, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 348-350; People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 503-504 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ]; Esquivel, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399 .) “Instructional error regarding the elements of the offense requires reversal of the judgment unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” (People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hudsongreen2 sentences2013Assessment of Prejudice “In deciding whether a trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is prejudicial to the defendant, we ask whether it appears ‘ “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1013 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ], quoting People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 671 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 , 967 P.2d 563 ].) In People v. Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577, this court reversed a robbery conviction because the jury had been misinstructed on the meaning of “immediat 2013Assessment of Prejudice “In deciding whether a trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is prejudicial to the defendant, we ask whether it appears ‘ “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1013 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ], quoting People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 671 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 , 967 P.2d 563 ].) In People v. Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577, this court reversed a robbery conviction because the jury had been misinstructed on the meaning of “immediat | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hagengreen2 sentences2013Assessment of Prejudice “In deciding whether a trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is prejudicial to the defendant, we ask whether it appears ‘ “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1013 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ], quoting People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 671 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 , 967 P.2d 563 ].) In People v. Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577, this court reversed a robbery conviction because the jury had been misinstructed on the meaning of “immediat 2013Assessment of Prejudice “In deciding whether a trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is prejudicial to the defendant, we ask whether it appears ‘ “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1013 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ], quoting People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 671 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 , 967 P.2d 563 ].) In People v. Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577, this court reversed a robbery conviction because the jury had been misinstructed on the meaning of “immediat | 1 | 2 |
People v. La Vergnegreen1 sentence2025(See People v. La Vergne (1966) 64 Cal.2d 265, 272 [“homicide by strangulation indicates malice”]; People v. Pool (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 904, 908 [defendant who strangled his victim “‘acted with knowledge of the danger to and conscious disregard for life’”]; People v. Rowland (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1, 9 [evidence of strangulation “is a means of establishing malice aforethought”].) 3 In supplemental briefing, Sills argues that the federal harmless-error test applies when a trial court fails to instruct on involuntary manslaughter as a necessarily lesser included offense of murder. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Poolgreen1 sentence2025(See People v. La Vergne (1966) 64 Cal.2d 265, 272 [“homicide by strangulation indicates malice”]; People v. Pool (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 904, 908 [defendant who strangled his victim “‘acted with knowledge of the danger to and conscious disregard for life’”]; People v. Rowland (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1, 9 [evidence of strangulation “is a means of establishing malice aforethought”].) 3 In supplemental briefing, Sills argues that the federal harmless-error test applies when a trial court fails to instruct on involuntary manslaughter as a necessarily lesser included offense of murder. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rowlandgreen1 sentence2025(See People v. La Vergne (1966) 64 Cal.2d 265, 272 [“homicide by strangulation indicates malice”]; People v. Pool (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 904, 908 [defendant who strangled his victim “‘acted with knowledge of the danger to and conscious disregard for life’”]; People v. Rowland (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1, 9 [evidence of strangulation “is a means of establishing malice aforethought”].) 3 In supplemental briefing, Sills argues that the federal harmless-error test applies when a trial court fails to instruct on involuntary manslaughter as a necessarily lesser included offense of murder. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ortizgreen1 sentence2025However, in dealing with misjoinder of parties, the California Supreme Court has applied the state’s harmless error standard in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 836 and examined whether it is “reasonably probable” that the defendant “would have obtained a more favorable verdict at a separate trial.” (People v. Massie (1967) 66 Cal.2d 923 -924; see also People v. Ortiz (1978) 22 Cal.3d 38, 46 .) Misjoinder of charges no more raises federal constitutional issues than misjoinder of parties. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ariasgreen1 sentence2024(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 153 (Arias); People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1220 (Johnson).) “This routine application of state evidentiary law does not implicate defendant’s constitutional rights.” (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 545 ; Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 76 .) 11 said Castro kissed her three times with his tongue during the 2013 visit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cunninghamgreen1 sentence2024(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 836–837 (Watson) [state law error measured under reasonable probability standard]; People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 999 [evidentiary ruling “if erroneous, is ‘an error of law merely,’ which is governed by the standard of review announced in [Watson]”]; People v. Jeffrey G. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 501, 510 [applying Watson standard to alleged Sanchez violation].)2 Any prejudice from the court limiting Dr. Williams’s 2 James asserts error under the federal harmless error standard in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2024(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 153 (Arias); People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1220 (Johnson).) “This routine application of state evidentiary law does not implicate defendant’s constitutional rights.” (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 545 ; Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 76 .) 11 said Castro kissed her three times with his tongue during the 2013 visit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jeffrey G.green1 sentence2024(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 836–837 (Watson) [state law error measured under reasonable probability standard]; People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 999 [evidentiary ruling “if erroneous, is ‘an error of law merely,’ which is governed by the standard of review announced in [Watson]”]; People v. Jeffrey G. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 501, 510 [applying Watson standard to alleged Sanchez violation].)2 Any prejudice from the court limiting Dr. Williams’s 2 James asserts error under the federal harmless error standard in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman). | 1 | 1 |
Hedgpeth v. Pulidogreen1 sentence2023For example, harmless error may be demonstrated by showing that, in rendering a verdict, the jury “necessarily found the defendant guilty on a proper theory.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1131 (Guiton); see also People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 506 [noting that instructional error is harmless where “the jury necessarily found the omitted element in connection with other findings required by the instructions”].) However, a reviewing court need not determine with “ ‘absolute certainty’ ” what a jury found in rendering a verdict (Hedgpeth v. Pulido (2008) 555 U.S. 57, 62 ) or, i | 1 | 1 |
People v. Merrittgreen2 sentences2023(See, e.g., In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 , 580 (Lopez); People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824, 831 (Merritt).) 11 Under the federal harmless error standard, “[t]he reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless after, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3 (Aledamat); see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 [asking “[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the d 2023(See, e.g., In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 , 580 (Lopez); People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824, 831 (Merritt).) 11 Under the federal harmless error standard, “[t]he reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless after, after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 3 (Aledamat); see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 18 [asking “[i]s it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the d | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Burrell-Hartgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estelle v. McGuiregreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Harrisongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mowergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wimsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Osbandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Charlesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bruno v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Corral
green
2 sentences2022(See People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 352 [applying the federal harmless error standard to a failure to instruct on the elements of target offenses].) This issue was addressed almost 80 years ago in People v. Corral (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 66 . 2022(See People v. Hughes, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 352 [applying the federal harmless error standard to a failure to instruct on the elements of target offenses].) This issue was addressed almost 80 years ago in People v. Corral (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 66 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Santana
green
2 sentences2018The giving of an argumentative instruction is evaluated for prejudice under the state harmless error standard, not under the federal harmless error standard. ( People v. Santana, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1012 , 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 547 , 301 P.3d 1157 .) The evidence strongly indicated that defendants intentionally and successfully used force and intimidation to gain the advantage over their smaller victims and take their money. 2018The giving of an argumentative instruction is evaluated for prejudice under the state harmless error standard, not under the federal harmless error standard. ( People v. Santana, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 1012 , 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 547 , 301 P.3d 1157 .) The evidence strongly indicated that defendants intentionally and successfully used force and intimidation to gain the advantage over their smaller victims and take their money. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Esquivel
green
2 sentences2015A trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is subject to federal harmless error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ]. ( Wilkins, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 348-350; People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 503-504 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 ]; Esquivel, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399 .) “Instructional error regarding the elements of the offense requires reversal of the judgment unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” (People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal 2015A trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is subject to federal harmless error analysis under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 . ( Wilkins, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 348-350; People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 503-504 ; Esquivel, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399 .) “Instructional error regarding the elements of the offense requires reversal of the judgment unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” (People v. Chun (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1172, 1201 ; People v. Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 504 .) The | 2 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Hayes
green
2 sentences2013Assessment of Prejudice “In deciding whether a trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is prejudicial to the defendant, we ask whether it appears ‘ “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1013 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 , 136 P.3d 168 ], quoting People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 671 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 24 , 967 P.2d 563 ].) In People v. Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577, this court reversed a robbery conviction because the jury had been misinstructed on the meaning of “immediat 2013Assessment of Prejudice “In deciding whether a trial court’s misinstruction on an element of an offense is prejudicial to the defendant, we ask whether it appears ‘ “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1013 , quoting People v. Hagen (1998) 19 Cal.4th 652, 671 .) In People v. Hayes, supra, 52 Cal.3d 577 , this court reversed a robbery conviction because the jury had been misinstructed on the meaning of “ ‘immediate presence’ ” for the purposes of robbery’s requirement that the prope | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Jo
green
1 sentence2026The trial court erred in giving CALCRIM No. 580 to the jury as worded. “ ‘ “ In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” ’ ” (People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1172 .) We need not 28 determine whether the instructional error here is subject to the People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 , “reasonably probable” standard or the more stringent federal harmless | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 153 (Arias); People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1220 (Johnson).) “This routine application of state evidentiary law does not implicate defendant’s constitutional rights.” (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 545 ; Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 76 .) 11 said Castro kissed her three times with his tongue during the 2013 visit. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Sandoval
red
1 sentence2024Because California law requires only a single aggravating fact to authorize an upper term sentence, the federal harmless error inquiry focuses on the possibility of proper proof of that fact: “[I]f a reviewing court concludes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury, applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, unquestionably would have found true at least a single aggravating circumstance had it been submitted to the jury, the Sixth Amendment error properly may be found harmless.” (Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 839 .) I note that, even under the majority’s view that every fact used t | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Coffman
green
1 sentence2024(People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 153 (Arias); People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1220 (Johnson).) “This routine application of state evidentiary law does not implicate defendant’s constitutional rights.” (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 545 ; Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 76 .) 11 said Castro kissed her three times with his tongue during the 2013 visit. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Martinez
green
1 sentence2023Harmless Error Analysis Because the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment includes the “right to a jury properly instructed in the relevant law” (In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216, 1224 ), erroneous jury instructions violate the United States Constitution and constitute reversible error unless the federal harmless error standard in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 is satisfied. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Tidwell green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Saddler green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Gutierrez green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Maryland v. Craig green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Livingston green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Wilkins green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Yates v. Evatt green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Harrington v. California red | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Geier green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Delaware v. Van Arsdall green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Pope v. Illinois green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Arizona v. Fulminante green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Payne v. Arkansas green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Rose v. Clark green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Roberts v. Russell green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Bruton v. United States green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.