lesser included offense instruction in California

2026(Braverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) The lesser included offense instruction should be given only “where there is substantial evidence to support it.” (People v. Burns (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1256 , citing People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50 .) Thus, “the trial court need not instruct on a lesser included offense whenever any evidence, no matter how weak, is presented to support an instruction, but only when the evidence is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury.” (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195, fn. 4 (Barton).) Instruction is not required “when t

2025We disagree because we find that there is not substantial evidence to support the lesser included instruction. “‘On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense.’” (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680 , 704–705.) A trial court has a sua sponte duty to give the jury “instructions on lesser included offenses when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense were present.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142 , 154–155.) However, this requirement is limited: “the existence of

2025A trial court has a duty to instruct on a lesser-included offense “ ‘if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.’ ” (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 116 .) “ ‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’ [Citations.] [¶] ‘ “Conversely, even on request, the court ‘has no duty

2025Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * “‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’” (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90 , 115–116 (Souza).) Eric Scott Sills killed his wife Susann in an upstairs bedroom of 1 their home.

2026(See People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574 , 623–624.) The trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses “if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686 , 744–745, overruled on other grounds by People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) “To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the f

2023(Ibid.; see also People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 745 [“To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.”].) In deciding whether there is substantial evidence to warrant the instruction, the court should not evaluate the credibility of witnesses and should resolve doubts in favor of giving the instruction.

2014An error in failing to instruct on a lesser included offense does not warrant reversal unless an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, discloses that “it appears ‘reasonably probable’ the defendant would have achieved a more favorable result had the error not occurred.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 149 ; see People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) “Error in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is harmless when the jury necessarily decides the factual questions posed by the omitted instructions adversely to defendant under oth

2014An error in failing to instruct on a lesser included offense does not warrant reversal unless an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, discloses that “it appears ‘reasonably probable’ the defendant would have achieved a more favorable result had the error not occurred.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 149 ; see People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) “Error in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense is harmless when the jury necessarily decides the factual questions posed by the omitted instructions adversely to defendant under oth

2026(Braverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) The lesser included offense instruction should be given only “where there is substantial evidence to support it.” (People v. Burns (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1256 , citing People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50 .) Thus, “the trial court need not instruct on a lesser included offense whenever any evidence, no matter how weak, is presented to support an instruction, but only when the evidence is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury.” (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195, fn. 4 (Barton).) Instruction is not required “when t

2025(Ibid.) The lesser included offense instruction should be given only “where there is substantial evidence to support it.” (People v. Burns (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1256 , citing People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50 .) Thus, “the trial court need not instruct on a lesser included 7 offense whenever any evidence, no matter how weak, is presented to support an instruction, but only when the evidence is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury.” (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195, fn. 4 (Barton).) Instruction is not required “when the evidence is ‘minimal and insub

2022Even evidence that is unconvincing or subject to justifiable suspicion may constitute substantial evidence and may trigger the lesser-included-offense requirement.” (People v. Vasquez (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 786, 792 .) “The failure to instruct on lesser included offenses supported by substantial evidence” is reversible only when it is reasonably probable the accused would have received a more favorable result absent the error. ( Gonzalez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 195-196. [applying the harmless error standard under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 (Watson)].) “The Supreme Court has emphasiz

2022The failure to give a lesser included offense instruction in a noncapital case is, with limited exception not applicable here, a matter of state law to be reviewed for prejudice under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .

1996Of course, “ ‘ [D]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction.’ ” (People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 696 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 788 , 802 P.2d 278 ], quoting Hopper v. Evans (1982) 456 U.S. 605, 611 [ 72 L.Ed.2d 367, 373 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 ], italics in original; see also People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 325 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ], overruled on another point, People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 906 P.2d 531 ].) In this case, there was no substantial evidence from

1996Of course, “ ‘ [D]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction.’ ” (People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 696 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 788 , 802 P.2d 278 ], quoting Hopper v. Evans (1982) 456 U.S. 605, 611 [ 72 L.Ed.2d 367, 373 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 ], italics in original; see also People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 325 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ], overruled on another point, People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 906 P.2d 531 ].) In this case, there was no substantial evidence from

2005"It is well settled that the trial court is obligated to instruct on necessarily included offenses — even without a request — when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present and there is evidence that would justify a conviction of such a lesser offense." ( People v. Ramkeesoon (1985) 39 Cal.3d 346, 351 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 455 , 702 P.2d 613 .) In general, "`[d]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction'" ( People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 696 , 276 Cal.Rp

2005"It is well settled that the trial court is obligated to instruct on necessarily included offenses — even without a request — when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present and there is evidence that would justify a conviction of such a lesser offense." ( People v. Ramkeesoon (1985) 39 Cal.3d 346, 351 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 455 , 702 P.2d 613 .) In general, "`[d]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction'" ( People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 696 , 276 Cal.Rp

1998The record here lacks substantial evidence of any indicia that the fetus was bom alive. “ ‘[D]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instmction.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 696 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 788 , 802 P.2d 278 ], quoting Hopper v. Evans (1982) 456 U.S. 605, 611 [ 102 S.Ct. 2049, 2052-2053 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 ], italics in Hopper.) *508 Substantial evidence in this context is evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the lesser offense.

1998The record here lacks substantial evidence of any indicia that the fetus was bom alive. “ ‘[D]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instmction.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Kaurish (1990) 52 Cal.3d 648, 696 [ 276 Cal.Rptr. 788 , 802 P.2d 278 ], quoting Hopper v. Evans (1982) 456 U.S. 605, 611 [ 102 S.Ct. 2049, 2052-2053 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 ], italics in Hopper.) *508 Substantial evidence in this context is evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the lesser offense.

2026(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 .) Imperfect self-defense is a description of one type of voluntary manslaughter. ( Barton, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 200–201.) “‘“Under the doctrine of imperfect self-defense, when the trier of fact finds that a defendant killed another person because the defendant actually, but 8 unreasonably, believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, the defendant is deemed to have acted without malice and thus can be convicted of no crime greater than voluntary manslaughter.” [Citation.]’” (People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581

2020(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 725 [abuse of discretion standard applies to any evidentiary ruling, including hearsay]; People v. Yates (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 474, 484-485 [hearsay rulings]; People v. Poplar (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1138 [§ 1109 evidence].) Appellate courts review a trial court’s failure to give a lesser included offense instruction under a de novo standard, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.

2022Even evidence that is unconvincing or subject to justifiable suspicion may constitute substantial evidence and may trigger the lesser-included-offense requirement.” (People v. Vasquez (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 786, 792 .) “The failure to instruct on lesser included offenses supported by substantial evidence” is reversible only when it is reasonably probable the accused would have received a more favorable result absent the error. ( Gonzalez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 195-196.) Viewed in the light most favorable to Lara, the record supports a theory he shot the victim as punishment or for revenge rel

2022Even evidence that is unconvincing or subject to justifiable suspicion may constitute substantial evidence and may trigger the lesser-included-offense requirement.” (People v. Vasquez (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 786, 792 .) “The failure to instruct on lesser included offenses supported by substantial evidence” is reversible only when it is reasonably probable the accused would have received a more favorable result absent the error. ( Gonzalez, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 195-196. [applying the harmless error standard under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 (Watson)].) “The Supreme Court has emphasiz

2025We disagree because we find that there is not substantial evidence to support the lesser included instruction. “‘On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense.’” (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680 , 704–705.) A trial court has a sua sponte duty to give the jury “instructions on lesser included offenses when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense were present.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142 , 154–155.) However, this requirement is limited: “the existence of

2025(People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705 .) This duty exists whether or not a request is made for a lesser included offense instruction.

2024(People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 538 ; People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735 , 758- 759.) The evidence necessary to support a lesser included offense instruction must be substantial from which reasonable jurors could conclude that the facts underlying the instruction exist.

2022(People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 759 (Enraca).) To justify a lesser included offense instruction, substantial evidence—evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude the facts supported the instruction—must appear in the record.

2024(People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 664 .) We review the issue de novo and independently determine whether a lesser included offense instruction should have been given.

2021(People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 664 .) When the evidence in support of the lesser included offense is “ ‘minimal and insubstantial,’ ” the lesser included offense instruction does not need to be given.

2016FALSE IMPRISONMENT “‘In criminal cases, even absent a request, the trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citation.] This obligation includes giving instructions on lesser included offenses when the evidence raises a question whether all the elements of the charged offense were present, but not when there is no evidence the offense was less than that charged. [Citation.] The trial court must so instruct even when, as a matter of trial tactics, a defendant not only fails to request the instruction, but expressly objects to its bein

2014(People v. Eid (July 10, 2014, S211702) 59 Cal.4th 650 ; People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 624 ; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142 , 17 162; People v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1138 .) In deciding whether there is substantial evidence to support a lesser included offense instruction, the “court determines only its bare legal sufficiency, not its weight.” (People v. Moye (2008) 47 Cal.4th 537, 556 .) On appeal we review independently whether a lesser included offense instruction was warranted.

2025Defendant then shot Martinez while Raymond’s view was obstructed. “‘“To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.”’ (People v. Burney [(2009)] 47 Cal.4th [203,] 250.) ‘Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense.’” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 385, quoting People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132 .) In

2023The court also stated that it would 72 PEOPLE v. THOMAS Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, J. reconsider its ruling if defendant presented additional evidence to support his theory. “[A] trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 .) “ ‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial — that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could c

2023The court also stated that it would 72 PEOPLE v. THOMAS Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, J. reconsider its ruling if defendant presented additional evidence to support his theory. “[A] trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 .) “ ‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial — that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could c

2014(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 .)” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 ; accord, People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 179 (Booker).) ‘“To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’ (People v. Blair [(2005)] 36 Cal.4th [686,] 745, citing People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .)” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 250 .) “Murder is th

2009(People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 745 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485 , 115 P.3d 1145 ]; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 , 960 P.2d 1094 ] [duty to instruct on court’s own motion]; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ] [duty to instruct upon request].) “That obligation encompasses instructions on lesser included offenses if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.” (People v. Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 745 , citing People

2009(People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 745 [ 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 485 , 115 P.3d 1145 ]; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 [ 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 , 960 P.2d 1094 ] [duty to instruct on court’s own motion]; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 ] [duty to instruct upon request].) “That obligation encompasses instructions on lesser included offenses if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.” (People v. Blair, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 745 , citing People

2024(People v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1137 ; Manriquez, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 584 .) A lesser included offense instruction is required when supported by substantial evidence, meaning a reasonable jury could conclude that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.

2024(People v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1137 ; Manriquez, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 584 .) A lesser included offense instruction is required when supported by substantial evidence, meaning a reasonable jury could conclude that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.

2018Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826 , 868, fn. 16, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) As part of this right, a defendant is " 'entitled to adequate instructions on the defense theory of the *888 case' if supported by the law and evidence [citation] and ' "has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence ..." ' [citation]." ( People v. Eid (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 859 , 879, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ; People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703 , 736, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 , 50 P.3d 332 ["Defendants have a constitutional right to have the jury determine every materi

2018Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826 , 868, fn. 16, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) As part of this right, a defendant is " 'entitled to adequate instructions on the defense theory of the *888 case' if supported by the law and evidence [citation] and ' "has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence ..." ' [citation]." ( People v. Eid (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 859 , 879, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ; People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703 , 736, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 , 50 P.3d 332 ["Defendants have a constitutional right to have the jury determine every materi

2024(People v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1137 ; Manriquez, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 584 .) A lesser included offense instruction is required when supported by substantial evidence, meaning a reasonable jury could conclude that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.

2023(People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705 .) Although “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant” (People v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1137 ), the evidentiary requirement for a lesser included offense instruction “is not satisfied by ‘ “any evidence … no matter how weak.” ’ ” (Avila, at p. 705, original italics.) B Defense counsel asked the trial court to instruct the jury on theft as a lesser included offense of robbery using CALCRIM No. 1800 [Theft by Larceny].

1999Hence, the rule encourages a verdict, within the charge chosen by the prosecution, that is neither ‘harsher [n]or more lenient than the evidence merits.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 119; accord, Spaziano v. Florida (1984) 468 U.S. 447, 455 [ 104 S.Ct. 3154, 3159 , 82 L.Ed.2d 340 ] [absence of a lesser included offense instruction “increases the risk that the jury will convict, not because it is persuaded that the defendant is guilty of capital murder, but simply to avoid setting the defendant free”].) A similar rule requiring instruction on lesser related offenses (upon defense request) was recen

1999Hence, the rule encourages a verdict, within the charge chosen by the prosecution, that is neither ‘harsher [n]or more lenient than the evidence merits.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 119; accord, Spaziano v. Florida (1984) 468 U.S. 447, 455 [ 104 S.Ct. 3154, 3159 , 82 L.Ed.2d 340 ] [absence of a lesser included offense instruction “increases the risk that the jury will convict, not because it is persuaded that the defendant is guilty of capital murder, but simply to avoid setting the defendant free”].) A similar rule requiring instruction on lesser related offenses (upon defense request) was recen

2026(Braverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) The lesser included offense instruction should be given only “where there is substantial evidence to support it.” (People v. Burns (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1256 , citing People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50 .) Thus, “the trial court need not instruct on a lesser included offense whenever any evidence, no matter how weak, is presented to support an instruction, but only when the evidence is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury.” (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195, fn. 4 (Barton).) Instruction is not required “when t

2025(Ibid.) The lesser included offense instruction should be given only “where there is substantial evidence to support it.” (People v. Burns (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1256 , citing People v. DePriest (2007) 42 Cal.4th 1, 50 .) Thus, “the trial court need not instruct on a lesser included 7 offense whenever any evidence, no matter how weak, is presented to support an instruction, but only when the evidence is substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury.” (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 195, fn. 4 (Barton).) Instruction is not required “when the evidence is ‘minimal and insub