appellate court addresses claim in California

2023(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘ “[I]n reviewing an ambiguous instruction . . . , we inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 60 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in

2022(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 ; see also People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We also consider the entire trial record, including the arguments of counsel, in assessing the probable effect of a jury instruction.

2023“The risk of a discrepancy between the orally delivered and the written instructions exists in every trial, and verdicts are not undermined by the mere fact the trial court misspoke. ‘We of course presume “that jurors understand and follow the court’s instructions.” [Citation.] This presumption includes the written instructions. [Citation.] To the extent a discrepancy exists between the written and oral versions of jury instructions, the written instructions provided to the jury will control.’ ” (People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 200-201 .) “Even if we did not assume that the jury underst

2015(People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 201 ; People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 409-410 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner. [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803-804 .) We assess instructions “in the context of the evidence presented and other circumstances of the trial to determine whether t

2025Under the more stringent Chapman standard, which applies to errors of constitutional dimension, reversal is required unless the reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. ( Chapman, supra, at p. 24 .) Under the alternative Watson standard, which applies to errors of state law, reversal is not required unless it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the error not occurred. ( Watson, supra, at p. 836 .) “‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the

2023Standard of Review “We review de novo whether jury instructions state the law correctly.” (People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 .) “ ‘[W]e presume the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (People v.

2024(People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context 23 with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 (Wilson).) “We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation, and we presume jurors can understand and correlate all ins

2021(People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context 10 with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 .) In making this assessment, we presume the jurors understood and followed the trial court’s instructions.

2023Standard of Review “We review de novo whether jury instructions state the law correctly.” (People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 .) “ ‘[W]e presume the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (People v.

2022(See People v. Silveria and Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 245 ; In re Loza (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 797, 800 [We “presume jurors are intelligent people capable of understanding and correlating all of the instructions they were given.”].) And, if possible, we interpret the instructions “so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.” (People v. Laskiewicz (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1254, 1258 .) C.

2023(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘ “[I]n reviewing an ambiguous instruction . . . , we inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 60 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in

2015More fundamentally, however, we do not believe that this would be a reasonable interpretation of the jury instructions. “‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1217 .) Here, the jury was generally instructed to “consider the[ instructions] together.” (CALCRIM No.

2022Applicable law Section 1138 provides that when the jury “desire[s] to be informed on any point of law arising in the case . . . the information required must be given.” “Where the original instructions [to the jury] are themselves full and complete, the court has discretion under section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are sufficient to satisfy the jury’s request for information.” (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 97 .) In responding to a request for further instruction, the court “must at least consider how it can best aid the jury . . . [and] should decide as to each j

2022Applicable law Section 1138 provides that when the jury “desire[s] to be informed on any point of law arising in the case . . . the information required must be given.” “Where the original instructions [to the jury] are themselves full and complete, the court has discretion under section 1138 to determine what additional explanations are sufficient to satisfy the jury’s request for information.” (People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 97 .) In responding to a request for further instruction, the court “must at least consider how it can best aid the jury . . . [and] should decide as to each j

2022Standard of Review “Errors in jury instructions are questions of law, which we review de novo.” (People v. Russell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1424 ; People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 ; People v. Paysinger (2009) 174 Cal.

2015“A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo.” (People v. Ghebretensae (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 741, 759 , citing People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558 , 569- 570.) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner. [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803-804 .) 15 Defendant wisely does not dispute the validity

2015(People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 201 ; People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 409-410 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner. [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803-804 .) We assess instructions “in the context of the evidence presented and other circumstances of the trial to determine whether t

2014(People v. Mills (2010) 48 Cal.4th 158, 201 ; People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 409-410 ; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner. [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803-804 .) “‘Under established law, instructional error relieving the prosecution of the

2025But a defendant who kills in a heat of passion lacks the requisite malice for murder, reducing what would otherwise be murder to voluntary manslaughter. (§ 192, subd. (a); People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 942 .) “Heat of passion arises if, ‘ “at the time of the killing, the reason of the accused was obscured or disturbed by passion to such an extent as would cause the ordinarily reasonable person of average disposition to act rashly and without deliberation and reflection, and from such passion rather than from judgment.” ’ ” (Beltran, at p. 942.) The provocative conduct may be physica

2025Under the more stringent Chapman standard, which applies to errors of constitutional dimension, reversal is required unless the reviewing court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. ( Chapman, supra, at p. 24 .) Under the alternative Watson standard, which applies to errors of state law, reversal is not required unless it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result had the error not occurred. ( Watson, supra, at p. 836 .) “‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the

2025(See People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758 , 804–805; People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) A. Standard of review “The legal adequacy of an instruction is reviewed independently.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 80

2024(People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context 23 with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 (Wilson).) “We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation, and we presume jurors can understand and correlate all ins

2024Legal Background “Under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the prosecution must prove a defendant’s guilt of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and a trial court must so inform the jury.” (People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 356 .) Section 1096 defines reasonable doubt as follows: “ ‘It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

2023(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘ “[I]n reviewing an ambiguous instruction . . . , we inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 60 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in

2023Standard of Review “We review de novo whether jury instructions state the law correctly.” (People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 677 .) “ ‘[W]e presume the jury understood and followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (People v.

2023(People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 419 ; accord, Harry v. Ring the Alarm, LLC (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 749, 758 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 729 ; accord, Largey v. Intrastate Radiotelephone, Inc. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 660, 671 [“ ‘It is a fundamental rule that al

2023(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘ “[I]n reviewing an ambiguous instruction . . . , we inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 60 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in

2023(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘ “[I]n reviewing an ambiguous instruction . . . , we inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 60 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in