evidence supports instruction in California

2016(See People v. Padilla (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 675, 677 (Padilla) [“We hold that evidence of a hallucination—a perception with no objective reality—is . . . admissible to negate deliberation and premeditation so as to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder”].) Moreover, our Supreme Court has held that instructions on the effect of a defendant’s mental disease or disorder on his or her mental 17 state need not be given sua sponte; rather, they are “in the nature of pinpoint instructions required to be given only on request where the evidence supports the defense theory.” (People v. E

2016(See People v. Padilla (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 675, 677 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 889 ] (Padilla) [“We hold that evidence of a hallucination—a perception with no objective reality—is . . . admissible to negate deliberation and premeditation so as to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder”].) Moreover, our Supreme Court has held that instructions on the effect of a defendant’s mental disease or disorder on his or her mental state need not be given sua sponte; rather, they are “in the nature of pinpoint instructions required to be given only on request where the evidence supports the defense

2021(People v. Padilla (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 675, 677 [evidence of a hallucination admissible to negate deliberation and premeditation so as to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder] (Padilla).) CALCRIM No. 627 is a pinpoint instruction to be given on request when the evidence supports the defense theory.

2016(See People v. Padilla (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 675, 677 (Padilla) [“We hold that evidence of a hallucination—a perception with no objective reality—is . . . admissible to negate deliberation and premeditation so as to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder”].) Moreover, our Supreme Court has held that instructions on the effect of a defendant’s mental disease or disorder on his or her mental 17 state need not be given sua sponte; rather, they are “in the nature of pinpoint instructions required to be given only on request where the evidence supports the defense theory.” (People v. E

1967The only contrary evidence consists in broad generalizations charging, in effect, that rights of inheritance are worthless in a "Communist regime of socialized property." (Stoicoiu, op. cit. supra, pp. 227, 244.) Rumania has admittedly "embarked upon a program of socialization," but it has not attempted to "nationalize every conceivable kind of property." (Estate of Kennedy (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 621, 629 [ 235 P.2d 837 ].) (Cf. Estate of Larkin, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 85 .) The record before us suggests that Rumania, like the Soviet Union, has found it economically and politically impossible t

1967The only contrary evidence consists in broad generalizations charging, in effect, that rights of inheritance are worthless in a “Communist regime of socialized property.” (Stoicoiu, op. cit. supra, pp. 227, 244.) Bumania has admittedly “embarked upon a program of socialization,’’ but it has not attempted to “nationalize every conceivable kind of property.” (Estate of Kennedy (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 621, 629 [ 235 P.2d 837 ].) (Cf. Estate of Larkin, supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 85 .) The record before us suggests that Bumania, like the Soviet Union, has found it economically and politically impossible

2022Those cases instruct that Green’s clarifying language was not intended to become an ““‘element” of such special circumstances, on which the jury must be instructed in all cases regardless of whether the evidence supports such an instruction.’” (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 113-114 , quoting People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480 , 501 and citing Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 505 [no error in giving a “truncated instruction” where no significant motive of murder exists other than robbery].) Accordingly, we find no instructional error.

2003(Id. at p. 62.) However, in People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480 [ 244 Cal.Rptr. 148 , 749 P.2d 803 ], also cited by Harden, the court stated: “[W]e reject the dissent’s novel suggestion that Green’s clarification of the scope of felony-murder special circumstances has somehow become an ‘element’ of such special circumstances, on which the jury must be instructed in all cases regardless of whether the evidence supports such an instruction.

2000(See also People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1014 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 648 , 945 P.2d 1197 ( Castillo ).) Instead, these instructions are more in the nature of pinpoint instructions required to be given only on request where the evidence supports the defense theory. ( Ibid.; Saille, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1119, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 , 820 P.2d 588 .) By similar reasoning, sua sponte instructions on the actual effect of the defendant's mental disease or disorder on his relevant mental state became unnecessary with the abolition of the mental disease/diminished capacity doctrine. (ง 28, subd. (a

2000(See also People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1014 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 648 , 945 P.2d 1197 ( Castillo ).) Instead, these instructions are more in the nature of pinpoint instructions required to be given only on request where the evidence supports the defense theory. ( Ibid.; Saille, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1119, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 , 820 P.2d 588 .) By similar reasoning, sua sponte instructions on the actual effect of the defendant's mental disease or disorder on his relevant mental state became unnecessary with the abolition of the mental disease/diminished capacity doctrine. (ง 28, subd. (a

2015(See also People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1014 .) Instead, these instructions are more in the nature of pinpoint instructions required to be given only on request where the evidence supports the defense theory.

2000(See also People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1014 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 648 , 945 P.2d 1197 ( Castillo ).) Instead, these instructions are more in the nature of pinpoint instructions required to be given only on request where the evidence supports the defense theory. ( Ibid.; Saille, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1119, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 , 820 P.2d 588 .) By similar reasoning, sua sponte instructions on the actual effect of the defendant's mental disease or disorder on his relevant mental state became unnecessary with the abolition of the mental disease/diminished capacity doctrine. (ง 28, subd. (a

2015(In re D.M. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 541, 554-555 [ 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 349 ].) As explained in DM., “The interest in providing a child with two parents is not a factor unless the evidence supports the presumption of parenthood. [][] We recognize that one important policy concern is ensuring that children have two parents.

2015(In re D.M. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 541, 554-555 [ 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 349 ].) As explained in DM., “The interest in providing a child with two parents is not a factor unless the evidence supports the presumption of parenthood. [][] We recognize that one important policy concern is ensuring that children have two parents.

2013(See People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142 , 153-163 . . . [discussing charge of completed murder]; People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186 , 201 . . . [same].)” (Boldface in original.) In deciding whether the evidence supports an instruction, the court does not evaluate the credibility of witnesses.

2007(People v. Barton *1265 (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 196 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 906 P.2d 531 ].) As we have stated, “neither the prosecution nor the defense should be allowed, based on their trial strategy, to preclude the jury from considering guilt of a lesser offense included in the crime charged.” (Ibid.) Indeed, “ ‘California decisions have held for decades that even absent a request, and even over the parties’ objections, the trial court must instruct on a lesser offense necessarily included in the charged offense if there is substantial evidence the defendant is guilty only of the lesser. [Ci

2022Those cases instruct that Green’s clarifying language was not intended to become an ““‘element” of such special circumstances, on which the jury must be instructed in all cases regardless of whether the evidence supports such an instruction.’” (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 113-114 , quoting People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480 , 501 and citing Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 505 [no error in giving a “truncated instruction” where no significant motive of murder exists other than robbery].) Accordingly, we find no instructional error.

2022Those cases instruct that Green’s clarifying language was not intended to become an ““‘element” of such special circumstances, on which the jury must be instructed in all cases regardless of whether the evidence supports such an instruction.’” (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 113-114 , quoting People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480 , 501 and citing Navarette, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 505 [no error in giving a “truncated instruction” where no significant motive of murder exists other than robbery].) Accordingly, we find no instructional error.

2016(See People v. Sandoval (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1433, fn. 1 [failure to make argument is not waiver when it would have been futile].) The record does not support this contention.

2016(See People v. Sandoval (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1433, fn. 1 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ] [failure to make argument is not waiver when it would have been futile].) The record does not support this contention.

2015(People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 699 , 208 P.3d 634 ].) We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing this instruction because there was no evidence that defendant actually, but unreasonably, believed Facundo presented an imminent threat of physical harm to Charlene when defendant killed him.

2015(People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 699 , 208 P.3d 634 ].) We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing this instruction because there was no evidence that defendant actually, but unreasonably, believed Facundo presented an imminent threat of physical harm to Charlene when defendant killed him.

2015(People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561 [ 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 , 317 P.3d 1148 ].) “The duty applies whenever there is evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant is guilty of the lesser, but not the greater, offense. [Citations.] That voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder is undisputed.” (Ibid.) Ultimately, “[i]t is for the court alone to decide whether the evidence supports instruction on a lesser included offense.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1264 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 , 156 P.3d 1015 ].) On appeal, we independently

2015(People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561 [ 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 , 317 P.3d 1148 ].) “The duty applies whenever there is evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant is guilty of the lesser, but not the greater, offense. [Citations.] That voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder is undisputed.” (Ibid.) Ultimately, “[i]t is for the court alone to decide whether the evidence supports instruction on a lesser included offense.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1264 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 , 156 P.3d 1015 ].) On appeal, we independently

2015(People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561 [ 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 , 317 P.3d 1148 ].) “The duty applies whenever there is evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant is guilty of the lesser, but not the greater, offense. [Citations.] That voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder is undisputed.” (Ibid.) Ultimately, “[i]t is for the court alone to decide whether the evidence supports instruction on a lesser included offense.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1264 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 , 156 P.3d 1015 ].) On appeal, we independently

2015(People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 561 [ 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 , 317 P.3d 1148 ].) “The duty applies whenever there is evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant is guilty of the lesser, but not the greater, offense. [Citations.] That voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder is undisputed.” (Ibid.) Ultimately, “[i]t is for the court alone to decide whether the evidence supports instruction on a lesser included offense.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1264 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 543 , 156 P.3d 1015 ].) On appeal, we independently

2014The ultimate burden is on the prosecution to prove the possession or transportation is unlawful. ( Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 479-483 [a defendant need only raise a reasonable doubt about whether his or her possession of the drug is lawful because of a valid prescription]; People v. Montalvo (1971) 4 Cal.3d 328, 333, fn. 3 .) Whether the evidence supports an instruction on this defense should be determined by the usual rules.

2013Thus, whether section 289, subdivision (a) and sexual battery under section 243.4, subdivision (a)—both crimes against adults—contain the element of an unconsented act does not aid our analysis. 9 commit sexual penetration on his victim but was “unsuccessful in the attempt.” (See People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 674 [rejecting argument that sua sponte attempted rape instruction was required where there was no evidence “that defendant intended to commit rape but was unsuccessful in the attempt”].) Here, although the evidence supports the instruction, the trial court’s failure to instruct o