opportunity to correct error in California

1961Such objections, it is said, should be made after the judge has completed his instructions or comments and outside the presence of the jury (as the trial judge indicated petitioner should do here); interruption of the judge is not necessary to give him “an opportunity to correct the error or false impression’’ (People v. Cheary (1957), 48 Cal.2d 301, 316 [16] [ 309 P.2d 431 ]) for that can be done by recalling the jury and correcting the instruction or retracting the comment, nor is such interruption necessary to preserve a record for appellate review, for that can be done by making the object

1961Such objections, it is said, should be made after the judge has completed his instructions or comments and outside the presence of the jury (as the trial judge indicated petitioner should do here); interruption of the judge is not necessary to give him “an opportunity to correct the error or false impression’’ (People v. Cheary (1957), 48 Cal.2d 301, 316 [16] [ 309 P.2d 431 ]) for that can be done by recalling the jury and correcting the instruction or retracting the comment, nor is such interruption necessary to preserve a record for appellate review, for that can be done by making the object

2016(Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341, fn. 6 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ].) “It makes no difference that the issue was first raised on appeal by the court rather than the parties, as long as the parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to address it.” (Ibid.) The attorney fee issue we are now considering falls within this exception.

2016(Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341, fn. 6 .) "It makes no difference that the issue was first raised on appeal by the court rather than the parties, as long as the parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to address it"—which they have, in their supplemental briefs.

2015(See Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 368 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 ]; see also Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 , 217 P.3d 1194 ] [issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal]; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 ] [appellant asserting error must have raised the issue in the trial court and given the trial court an opportunity to correct the error].) While ELF asserts insufficiency of the evidence objections are not waived even if raised for the firs

2015(See Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 368 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 ]; see also Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 , 217 P.3d 1194 ] [issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal]; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 ] [appellant asserting error must have raised the issue in the trial court and given the trial court an opportunity to correct the error].) While ELF asserts insufficiency of the evidence objections are not waived even if raised for the firs

2015(See Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 368 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 ]; see also Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 , 217 P.3d 1194 ] [issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal]; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 ] [appellant asserting error must have raised the issue in the trial court and given the trial court an opportunity to correct the error].) While ELF asserts insufficiency of the evidence objections are not waived even if raised for the firs

2015(See Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 368 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 ]; see also Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 , 217 P.3d 1194 ] [issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal]; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 ] [appellant asserting error must have raised the issue in the trial court and given the trial court an opportunity to correct the error].) While ELF asserts insufficiency of the evidence objections are not waived even if raised for the firs

2016(See Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) However, ‘“[i]t is important to remember . . . that the purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court and parties an opportunity to correct an error that could be corrected by some means short of an opposite outcome in the trial court.” (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 ] (Woodward Park).) Thus, as an exception to this general rule, the appellate court has discretion to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal where

2016(See Brandwein v. Butler (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1519 .) However, "[i]t is important to remember . . . that the purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court and parties an opportunity to correct an error that could be corrected by some means short of an opposite outcome in the trial court." (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712 .) As an exception to the general rule, the appellate court has discretion to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal where the relevant facts are undisputed and could not have been altered by

2015(See Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 368 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 ]; see also Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 , 217 P.3d 1194 ] [issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal]; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 ] [appellant asserting error must have raised the issue in the trial court and given the trial court an opportunity to correct the error].) While ELF asserts insufficiency of the evidence objections are not waived even if raised for the firs

2015(See Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 368 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 921 ]; see also Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 , 217 P.3d 1194 ] [issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal]; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 464 ] [appellant asserting error must have raised the issue in the trial court and given the trial court an opportunity to correct the error].) While ELF asserts insufficiency of the evidence objections are not waived even if raised for the firs

2012As to modification rulings made after 1992, appellate review of a claimed deficiency in the mling is not available unless the defendant brought the deficiency “to the trial court’s attention by a contemporaneous objection.” (People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 , 189 P.3d 880 ].) The purpose of this mle—“to give the court an opportunity to correct the error” (ibid.)—fully applies in this case.

2012As to modification rulings made after 1992, appellate review of a claimed deficiency in the mling is not available unless the defendant brought the deficiency “to the trial court’s attention by a contemporaneous objection.” (People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1141 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 , 189 P.3d 880 ].) The purpose of this mle—“to give the court an opportunity to correct the error” (ibid.)—fully applies in this case.

1995(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 853 P.2d 1093 ] [failure to object to trial court’s erroneous discharge of jury prior to jury’s determination of truth of prior conviction allegations]; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 , 851 P.2d 802 ] [failure to object to probation conditions]; People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1029 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 , 819 P.2d 861 ] [failure to object to fine]; In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1112 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 ] [same].) 9 Saunders and Welch both explain the purpose of finding a for

1995(People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589-590 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 638 , 853 P.2d 1093 ] [failure to object to trial court’s erroneous discharge of jury prior to jury’s determination of truth of prior conviction allegations]; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520 , 851 P.2d 802 ] [failure to object to probation conditions]; People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1029 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 , 819 P.2d 861 ] [failure to object to fine]; In re John H. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1112 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 25 ] [same].) 9 Saunders and Welch both explain the purpose of finding a for

1959(People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 78 [ 251 P.2d 324 ] and cases there cited.)” Moreover, the court instructed the jury in this connection as follows: “If, during this trial, I have said or done anything which may have suggested to you that I am inclined in favor of the claims or positions of either party, you will not suffer yourselves to be influenced by any such suggestion.

1959(People v. Amaya, 40 Cal.2d 70, 78 [ 251 P.2d 324 ] and cases there cited.)” Moreover, the court instructed the jury in this connection as follows: “If, during this trial, I have said or done anything which may have suggested to you that I am inclined in favor of the claims or positions of either party, you will not suffer yourselves to be influenced by any such suggestion.

2016(People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234-235 .) The purpose of the waiver rule is to ensure the error is brought to the attention of the trial court, both parties are heard on the issue, and the trial court has an opportunity to correct the error before issuing a final judgment.

2015(People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234-235 .) The purpose of the waiver rule is to ensure the error is brought to the attention of the trial court, both parties are heard on the issue, and the trial court has an opportunity to correct the error before issuing a final judgment.

2016(See Brandwein v. Butler (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1519 .) However, "[i]t is important to remember . . . that the purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court and parties an opportunity to correct an error that could be corrected by some means short of an opposite outcome in the trial court." (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712 .) As an exception to the general rule, the appellate court has discretion to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal where the relevant facts are undisputed and could not have been altered by

2016(See Brandwein v. Butler (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1519 [ 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 728 ].) However, “[i]t is important to remember . . . that the purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court and parties an opportunity to correct an error that could be corrected by some means short of an opposite outcome in the trial court.” (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 ].) *646 As an exception to the general rule, the appellate court has discretion to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal where the relevant facts

2023(People v. Matthews (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 164, 169, fn. 4 .) Because we remand for re- sentencing the trial court will have the opportunity to correct this error.

2023(See People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 360 (Steskal).) The reason for this rule is that the trial court should be given an opportunity to correct the error and, if possible, prevent any prejudice by an appropriate curative instruction.

2023(See People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718, 801 (Peoples).) Here, although defense counsel did not object during closing argument, he moved for a mistrial immediately after the jury was sent to select a foreperson and begin deliberations with just 10 minutes remaining in the court day.

2023(See People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [full resentencing on remand].) 10 Defendant also argues the trial court erred by not properly considering the presumptive low term due to his age, and in staying, rather than dismissing, the great bodily injury enhancement.

2016(See Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) However, ‘“[i]t is important to remember . . . that the purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court and parties an opportunity to correct an error that could be corrected by some means short of an opposite outcome in the trial court.” (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 ] (Woodward Park).) Thus, as an exception to this general rule, the appellate court has discretion to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal where

2016(See Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 457 ].) However, ‘“[i]t is important to remember . . . that the purpose of this general rule is to give the trial court and parties an opportunity to correct an error that could be corrected by some means short of an opposite outcome in the trial court.” (Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 712 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 102 ] (Woodward Park).) Thus, as an exception to this general rule, the appellate court has discretion to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal where

2014(Varjabedian v. City of Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11 [“[o]bvious reasons of fairness militate against consideration of an issue raised initially in the reply brief of an appellant”]; see Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 368 ; see also Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 [issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal]; Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 [appellant asserting error must have raised the issue in the trial court and given the trial court an opportunity to correct the e

2014In order to preserve a challenge to the setting of a restitution fine, “a defendant must make a timely objection in the trial court in order to give that court an opportunity to correct the error; failure to object should preclude reversal of the order on appeal.” (People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1468 ; see also People v. White (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 914, 917 .) Willard contends that because his claim rests on a constitutional violation, it is not forfeited on appeal as a result of the failure to object in the trial court.

2010(Riel, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1220.) As defendant’s modification hearing was held post-Hill, the forfeiture rule applies here.” (People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1140 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 614 , 189 P.3d 880 ].) “[T]he defendant must bring any deficiency in the ruling to the trial court’s attention by a contemporaneous objection, to give the court an opportunity to correct the error.” (Id. at p. 1141.) Defendant contends the court failed to understand its duty of independent review.

2006(In re Carrie W. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 746, 755 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 ].) Because the defect — the failure to have a proper representative of the HOA present — took place seven months earlier and could not have been remedied at a later time, the waiver rule is inapplicable.

2006(In re Carrie W. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 746, 755 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 ].) Because the defect — the failure to have a proper representative of the HOA present — took place seven months earlier and could not have been remedied at a later time, the waiver rule is inapplicable.