structural error in California

2022However, the court “‘question[ed] whether the structural error doctrine that has been established for certain errors in criminal proceedings should be imported wholesale, or unthinkingly, into the quite different context of dependency cases’” (id. at p. 1075, quoting In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901 , 915–916), reasoning that “in the dependency context, automatic reversal for errors that do not invariably lead to fundamental unfairness would exact a particularly steep cost. ‘There is little that can be as detrimental to a child’s sound development as uncertainty over whether he is to remai

2021(See In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901 , 915–916, 918 [“question[ing] whether the structural error doctrine that has been established for certain errors in criminal proceedings should be imported wholesale, or unthinkingly, into the quite different context of dependency cases” and observing, “If the outcome of a proceeding has not been affected, 11 denial of a right to notice and a hearing may be deemed harmless and reversal is not required”].) Mother had actual notice of the date and purpose of the hearing, her attorney gave her the code to call the court by Zoom, and there is no argument

2022(Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 310 ; see People v. Stewart (2004) 33 Cal.4th 425, 462 .) Structural error “ ‘def[ies] analysis by “harmless error” standards’ ” because the error has “ ‘consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate.’ ” (United States v. Gonzales–Lopez (2006) 548 U.S. 140, 148, 150 .) “Trial errors, by contrast, are errors that ‘occurred during the presentation of the 35 case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented’ in order to determine whether the error was harmless.

2020The rights and protections afforded parents in a dependency proceeding are not the same as those afforded to the accused in a criminal proceeding.” (Ibid.) On this basis, the Court rejected that “the structural error doctrine that has been established for certain errors in criminal proceedings should be imported wholesale, or unthinkingly, into the quite different context of dependency cases.” (Id. at pp. 915–916.) “James F. cited United States Supreme Court authority to explain that generally, an error is structural when it ‘ “def[ies] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards” ’ and cannot ‘ “b

2025A structural error, like having a biased judge or being deprived of 6 criminal defense counsel, requires automatic reversal because it “affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process.” (Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279 , 309–310.) Pec alternatively argues since his federal constitutional rights were violated, we should apply the harmless error test set forth in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 , which requires reversal unless the prosecution shows beyond a reasonable doubt the error was harmless.

2023The United States Supreme Court has explained that many structural errors, such as total deprivation of the right to counsel, deprivation of the right to self- representation, or deprivation of the right to a public trial, “defy analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards” because they affect “[t]he entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end.” ( Fulminante, supra, 499 U.S. at pp. 309–310.) Structural error also occurs when “there has been no jury verdict within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment,” such as where the jury was not properly 20 instructed on reasonable doubt or, as in Traugott, w

2025Structural errors, on the other hand, go to the very reliability of a criminal trial as a vehicle for determining guilt or innocence and are reversible per se.” (People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 (Anzalone).) Structural error is the “ ‘exception and not the rule,’ ” and there is a strong presumption that error is susceptible to harmless error analysis.

2025(People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425 , citing People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 .) Additionally, some errors are deemed structural, which “‘requires per se reversal because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.’” (TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766 , 787, quoting People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) Defendant’s argument that he did not validly waive a full resentencing hearing, necessitating reversal, implies a structural error, but “‘“[c]ategorization of an error as st

2021(See In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901, 915-916 [“[The] significant differences between criminal proceedings and dependency proceedings provide reason to question whether the structural error doctrine that has been established for certain errors in criminal proceedings should be imported wholesale, or unthinkingly, into the quite different context of dependency cases.”].) Instead, the Supreme Court has held that, in the dependency context, “[i]f the outcome of a proceeding has not been affected, denial of a right to notice and a hearing may be deemed harmless and reversal is not required.”

2021(See In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901, 915-916 [“[The] significant differences between criminal proceedings and dependency proceedings provide reason to question whether the structural error doctrine that has been established for certain errors in criminal proceedings should be imported wholesale, or unthinkingly, into the quite different context of dependency cases.”].) Instead, the Supreme Court has held that, in the dependency context, “[i]f the outcome of a proceeding has not been affected, denial of a right to notice and a hearing may be deemed harmless and reversal is not required.”

2008Structural defects requiring automatic reversal of a criminal conviction typically involve basic protections without which "`a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.'" ( Id. at p. 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246 ; see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 [stating that a structural error is one that " necessarily render[s] a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence"].) These inc

2008Structural defects requiring automatic reversal of a criminal conviction typically involve basic protections without which "`a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.'" ( Id. at p. 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246 ; see also Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 [stating that a structural error is one that " necessarily render[s] a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence"].) These inc

2024(See People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 313 [“a person is “ ‘categorically “ ‘vitiat[e] all the jury’s findings’ ” ’ ” (People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 412 ) and the effect on the verdict is “ ‘ “necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate.” ’ ” (People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 364 .) Omission of the unconsciousness and involuntary intoxication instructions in this case, even if they had been required, would not rise to the level of structural error; like most instructional errors, it is not the type of error that is necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate. 16 deemed ‘un

2022(See Mil, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 409–410 [indicating that the structural error doctrine applies only if an appellate court has found error].) B.

2021(See In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901, 915-916 [“[The] significant differences between criminal proceedings and dependency proceedings provide reason to question whether the structural error doctrine that has been established for certain errors in criminal proceedings should be imported wholesale, or unthinkingly, into the quite different context of dependency cases.”].) Instead, the Supreme Court has held that, in the dependency context, “[i]f the outcome of a proceeding has not been affected, denial of a right to notice and a hearing may be deemed harmless and reversal is not required.”

2021(See In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901, 915-916 [“[The] significant differences between criminal proceedings and dependency proceedings provide reason to question whether the structural error doctrine that has been established for certain errors in criminal proceedings should be imported wholesale, or unthinkingly, into the quite different context of dependency cases.”].) Instead, the Supreme Court has held that, in the dependency context, “[i]f the outcome of a proceeding has not been affected, denial of a right to notice and a hearing may be deemed harmless and reversal is not required.”

2020A structural error is a “ ‘defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ” (Johnson v. United States (1997) 520 U.S. 461, 468 [ 137 L.Ed.2d 718, 728 ]; People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) It is an error that “ ‘ “transcends the criminal process” ’ and ‘def[ies] analysis by “harmless-error” standards.’ ” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 851 .) Courts have found structural errors only in very limited circumstances, such as total deprivation of counsel at trial or trial by a biased judge.

2020A structural error is a “ ‘defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ” (Johnson v. United States (1997) 520 U.S. 461, 468 [ 137 L.Ed.2d 718, 728 ]; People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) It is an error that “ ‘ “transcends the criminal process” ’ and ‘def[ies] analysis by “harmless-error” standards.’ ” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 851 .) Courts have found structural errors only in very limited circumstances, such as total deprivation of counsel at trial or trial by a biased judge.

2024The three factors from Weaver v. Massachusetts (2017) 582 U.S. 286 that have been adopted by the California Supreme Court to consider whether the structural error doctrine should be applied in noncriminal cases weigh against finding a structural error.

2023“Wherever statutes conflict with constitutional provisions, the latter must prevail.” (People v. Navarro (1972) 7 Cal.3d 248, 260 .) “To be sure, even under . . . section 13, an error is reversible per se when it constitutes ‘a “‘structural [defect] in the 2 . . . trial mechanism’” that defies evaluation for harmlessness.’ ([Citation]; see People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545 , 554 . . . [‘A structural error requires per se reversal because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.’]; Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1

2015Structural errors are “ ‘structural defect[s] in the constitution of the trial mechanism . . . affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself (In re Angela C. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ].) “A structural error requires reversal without regard to the strength of the evidence or other circumstances. [Citation.] [¶] The United States Supreme Court has found structural errors, however, only in a very limited class of cases: the total deprivation of the right to counsel at trial [citation], a biased judge [c

2015Structural errors are “ ‘structural defect[s] in the constitution of the trial mechanism . . . affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself (In re Angela C. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ].) “A structural error requires reversal without regard to the strength of the evidence or other circumstances. [Citation.] [¶] The United States Supreme Court has found structural errors, however, only in a very limited class of cases: the total deprivation of the right to counsel at trial [citation], a biased judge [c

2025Under the structural error doctrine, “when a trial court erroneously denies all evidence relating to a claim, . . . the error [may be deemed] reversible per se because it deprives the party offering the evidence 13 of a fair hearing and of the opportunity to show actual prejudice.” (Gordon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1103, 1114 .) According to plaintiffs, the trial court, by excluding “ ‘any evidence’ ” supporting their malpractice and related claims in the dismissed complaint, deprived them of the “only defense that had a reasonable chance of success.” Yet, as plaintiffs

2025That is, “ ‘when a trial court erroneously denies all evidence relating to a claim, or essential expert testimony without which a claim cannot be proven, the error is reversible per se because it deprives the party offering the evidence of a fair hearing and of the opportunity to show actual prejudice.’ ” (Kline, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 136, quoting Gordon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1103, 1114 (Gordon).) But where there is only “[t]he erroneous denial of some but not all evidence relating to a claim [citations] . . . the appellant must show actual prejudice.” (Gordon,

2022(People v. Singh (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1330 (Singh).) A structural error is a “ ‘ “defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” ’ ” (People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 410 .) Such errors “ ‘deprive defendants of “basic protections” without which “a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” ’ ” (Ibid.) As this court has previously noted: “Under the California Supreme Court’s approach, structural error exists only in a very limited class of cases (g

2022(People v. Singh (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1330 (Singh).) A structural error is a “ ‘ “defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” ’ ” (People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 410 .) Such errors “ ‘deprive defendants of “basic protections” without which “a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” ’ ” (Ibid.) As this court has previously noted: “Under the California Supreme Court’s approach, structural error exists only in a very limited class of cases (g

2022VI, § 13; People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478, 493 ; McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) 584 U.S. ___ [ 200 L.Ed.2d 821, 833 , 138 S.Ct. 1500, 1511 ] (McCoy) [“Structural error ‘affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds,’ as distinguished from a lapse or flaw that is ‘simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ”].) Although the Burgos majority stated that a failure to bifurcate under section 1109 “likely constitutes ‘structural error’ because it ‘def[ies] analysis by harmless-error standards’ ” (Burgos, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 568), it did not so hold.

1997To impose such a requirement effectively permits waiver by silence, a result that is fundamentally incompatible with the constitutional command that jury trial waivers in criminal cases be personal and express. *286 The denial of jury trial is a structural error that can never be harmless, no matter how strong the evidence of guilt. ( People v. Ernst, supra, 8 Cal.4th 441, 449 ; People v. Cahill (1993) 5 Cal.4th 478, 501 [ 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 582 , 853 P.2d 1037 ].) Accordingly, the findings on the prior prison term allegations should be set aside.

2022(Aulisio v. Bancroft (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1527 [“ ‘A structural error requires reversal without regard to the strength of the evidence or other circumstances.’ ”].) As Zimmer’s other points of error are not necessary to our disposition of this appeal, we decline to address them. 18 DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed.

2019(Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 .) Structural errors require per se reversal “because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.” (People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) The effects of the error are “ ‘ “unmeasurable” ’ and ‘ “def[y] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards.” ’ [Citations.]” (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 261 , overruled in part on other grounds by Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) __ U.S. __ [ 139 S.Ct. 1407, 1417-1419 ].) “ ‘In the civil context, structural er

2022(People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 162 .) The United States Supreme Court has recognized that there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error. ( Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at pp. 23–24; McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) 584 U.S. ___ ,___ [ 138 S.Ct. 1500, 1511 , 200 L.Ed.2d 821, 833 ] [“Structural error ‘affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds,’ as distinguished from a lapse or flaw that is ‘simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ”].)13 Structural errors go to the very reliability of a criminal trial

2022(People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 162 [even if severance ruling correct when made, reversal required if joinder 48. resulted in “ ‘gross unfairness’ ” amounting to denial of due process], superseded by statute on other grounds as explained in People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 63, fn. 8 .)33 The United States Supreme Court has recognized that there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error. ( Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at pp. 23–24; McCoy v. Louisiana (2018) 584 U.S. ___ ,___ [ 138 S.Ct. 1500, 1511 , 200 L.Ed.2d

2026We need not decide whether this was structural error because even if we review for prejudice under the standard established in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ], the People have not shown the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2026We need not decide whether this was structural error because even if we review for prejudice under the standard established in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ], the People have not shown the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016(See People v. Watson[, supra,] 46 Cal.2d 818, 834-836 ; see also People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 484 .) That is, we shall not reverse unless there is a reasonable probability of a result more favorable to defendant if not for the error.” (Id. at p. 182.) We agree with Dobbins that an error in failing to order a probation report does not require automatic reversal and is subject to the Watson standard of prejudice because it does not involve a structural error and it implicates only California statutory law. 6.

2013(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 ; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ; cf. People v. Davis, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 532-534.) We agree with the People that such an error does not rise to the level of a structural error for which per se reversal of the judgment is required.

2007(Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at p. 282 .) Therefore, Sullivan held that a structural error in violation of the United States Constitution (e.g., instructional error depriving a defendant of the right to a jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) requires reversal per se of the judgment.

1998Thus, a majority found the confession was coerced, that it was error to admit it, that the error was subject to Chapman , and that the error did not pass the Chapman test (i.e., the error was prejudicial). [4] Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 . [5] Curiously, the most recent case to directly address the structural error issue ( Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. 275 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 ) seems to relegate the discussion of structural error to an alternative analysis. ( Id. at p. 281, 113 S.Ct. 2078 [Structural error analysis provides " [a]nother

2006(Cf. In re Jasmine G. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1116 , 26 Cal. Rptr.3d 394 ["the failure to attempt to give a parent statutorily required notice" of a termination hearing was a structural defect requiring automatic reversal because it deprived the parent of a meaningful opportunity to be heard]; Judith P. v. Superior Court, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at pp. 553-558, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 14 [not serving the mother with the status report at least 10 days before the review hearing at which the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing constituted a structural error where the mother did not waive her

2003In Judith P. v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 535 [ 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 14 ] the court held that the failure to file a section 366.21 status report at least 10 calendar days before a hearing to terminate a parent’s right to reunification services is a structural error requiring reversal per se.

2015(People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 500 [a structural error occurs in a very limited class of cases and is a defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds and not just simply an error in the trial process itself].) In the alternative, appellant seeks reversal under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman), claiming the due process error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2001For purposes of the federal Constitution, an error in the trial process itself is subject to a harmless error analysis as set forth in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 . ( People v. Flood supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 503 , 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 180 , 957 P.2d 869 .) In contrast, there are a limited number of "structural errors" that require automatic reversal. ( Ibid. ) A structural error is a defect that affects the framework within which the trial proceeds.

2023(People v. Reese (2017) 2 Cal.5th 660, 668 .) A structural error is one that is central to “the trial mechanism—a biased judge, total absence of counsel, the failure of a jury to reach any verdict on an essential element.” (People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 396 .) In other words, a structural error is a defect impacting how a trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.

2013(See Gamache, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 396 ; In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901, 914 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 358 , 174 P.3d 180 ] (James F.).) A structural error requires per se reversal because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.

2023“Wherever statutes conflict with constitutional provisions, the latter must prevail.” (People v. Navarro (1972) 7 Cal.3d 248, 260 .) “To be sure, even under . . . section 13, an error is reversible per se when it constitutes ‘a “‘structural [defect] in the 2 . . . trial mechanism’” that defies evaluation for harmlessness.’ ([Citation]; see People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545 , 554 . . . [‘A structural error requires per se reversal because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.’]; Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1

2020The trial court’s exclusion of 14 The additional case Gardner relies upon, In re Enrique G. 2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 676, 685 , held that appointment of a guardian ad litem in violation of a parent’s due process rights is a trial error, subject to analysis of prejudice, not a structural error requiring reversal per se. 21 this additional evidence of symptoms and conditions Calstar was not aware of did not prevent Gardner from presenting her case and was not tantamount to a nonsuit.15 Like most evidentiary rulings, it is subject to review for abuse of discretion.

2019Appellant asserts that "the erroneous denial of [his] request to represent himself is a structural error, requiring reversal." He relies on People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113 , 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 458 , 354 P.3d 268 ( Blackburn ).

2019Appellant asserts that "the erroneous denial of [his] request to represent himself is a structural error, requiring reversal." He relies on People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113 , 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 458 , 354 P.3d 268 ( Blackburn ).

2026(Cf. People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 179 [failure to obtain a separate jury trial waiver for a special circumstance allegation was not a structural error where neither the statutory text nor the legislative history of the applicable statute or initiative indicated the Legislature or the voters “saw a structural error as occurring” in those circumstances].) Indeed, the majority does not cite a single instance in which this court has disregarded a legislative determination that an error constituted a miscarriage of justice.

2025(People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425 , citing People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 .) Additionally, some errors are deemed structural, which “‘requires per se reversal because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.’” (TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra (2024) 15 Cal.5th 766 , 787, quoting People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 554 .) Defendant’s argument that he did not validly waive a full resentencing hearing, necessitating reversal, implies a structural error, but “‘“[c]ategorization of an error as st

2024(See People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 313 [“a person is “ ‘categorically “ ‘vitiat[e] all the jury’s findings’ ” ’ ” (People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 412 ) and the effect on the verdict is “ ‘ “necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate.” ’ ” (People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 364 .) Omission of the unconsciousness and involuntary intoxication instructions in this case, even if they had been required, would not rise to the level of structural error; like most instructional errors, it is not the type of error that is necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate. 16 deemed ‘un

2021The instructional error here is akin to these circumstances and is not a structural error that “rendered the trial ‘fundamentally unfair’ ” or was “ ‘necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate.’ ” (People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 366 , italics omitted.) We consider the prejudicial effect of this instructional error, and the errors we have identified in the exclusion of 91 PEOPLE v. NIEVES Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C.