defendant requests instruction (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

defendant requests instruction in California

27 California opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 9 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (36)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Modestogreen
cal · 1963 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1978
2 sentences

1978“It is well settled that if the defendant requests an instruction it must be given if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatsoever... (see People v. Tidwell, 3 Cal.3d 82 , 86 . . . .” (People v. Vasquez (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 81, 88 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 181 ].) Even where there is conflicting evidence on this issue, nevertheless the law requires that “ ‘[h]owever incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true’ ” (Italics in original.) (People v. Modesto (1963) 59 Cal.2d 722, 729 [ 31 C

1978“It is well settled that if the defendant requests an instruction it must be given if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatsoever... (see People v. Tidwell, 3 Cal.3d 82 , 86 . . . .” (People v. Vasquez (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 81, 88 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 181 ].) Even where there is conflicting evidence on this issue, nevertheless the law requires that “ ‘[h]owever incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true’ ” (Italics in original.) (People v. Modesto (1963) 59 Cal.2d 722, 729 [ 31 C

44
People v. Frandsengreen
calctapp5d · 2019 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022
2 sentences

2022(Cowan, at p. 34 [“On the ability-to-pay issue, we hold that, upon proper objection, a sentencing court must allow a defendant facing imposition of a minimum restitution fine or court operations and court facilities assessments an opportunity to present evidence and argument why these financial exactions exceed his ability to pay,” italics added]; People v. Kopp, supra, at p. 95 [agreeing with Dueñas to the extent it holds that “due process requires the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing and ascertain a defendant's ability to pay before it imposes court facilities and court opera

2022(See People v. Cowan (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 32 , 50, review granted June 17, 2020, S261952 [“upon proper objection, the court must hold a hearing at which defendant will have an opportunity to bear his burden of proof on the issue of ability to pay” (italics added)]; People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 95 , review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S257844 [agreeing with Dueñas to the extent it holds that “due process ‘requires the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing and ascertain a defendant’s ability to pay before it imposes court facilities and court operations assessments . . .’ if th

33
People v. Elizegreen
calctapp · 1999 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2021
2 sentences

2021(People v. Elize (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 615 .) However, where a defendant requests an instruction on an alternative defense, the instruction should be given if it is supported by substantial evidence.

2016Its inquiry then focuses on the sufficiency of such evidence.” (People v. Stevenson (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 976, 985 ; see People v. Elize 11 (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 615 [court should instruct on self-defense if there is substantial evidence of self-defense and the defendant requests an instruction].) In this context, substantial evidence is evidence that, if believed, would be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.

24
People v. Morsegreen
cal · 1964 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1978
2 sentences

1978“It is well settled that if the defendant requests an instruction it must be given if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatsoever... (see People v. Tidwell, 3 Cal.3d 82 , 86 . . . .” (People v. Vasquez (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 81, 88 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 181 ].) Even where there is conflicting evidence on this issue, nevertheless the law requires that “ ‘[h]owever incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true’ ” (Italics in original.) (People v. Modesto (1963) 59 Cal.2d 722, 729 [ 31 C

1978“It is well settled that if the defendant requests an instruction it must be given if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatsoever... (see People v. Tidwell, 3 Cal.3d 82 , 86 . . . .” (People v. Vasquez (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 81, 88 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 181 ].) Even where there is conflicting evidence on this issue, nevertheless the law requires that “ ‘[h]owever incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true’ ” (Italics in original.) (People v. Modesto (1963) 59 Cal.2d 722, 729 [ 31 C

24
People v. Pollockgreen
cal · 2004 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2004–2010
2 sentences

2010We disagree. (20) We have consistently concluded that CALJIC No. 8.85 is "`correct and adequate,'" and that no error results from a court's refusal to provide a more specific instruction informing the jury that it may consider a defendant's lack of prior felony convictions to be a factor in mitigation. ( People v. Burney, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 262, quoting People v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 309 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 , 180 P.3d 351 ]; see also People v. Monterroso (2004) 34 Cal.4th 743, 788 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 101 P.3d 956 ] ["`[A] trial court need not instruct that the absence of prio

2010We disagree. (20) We have consistently concluded that CALJIC No. 8.85 is "`correct and adequate,'" and that no error results from a court's refusal to provide a more specific instruction informing the jury that it may consider a defendant's lack of prior felony convictions to be a factor in mitigation. ( People v. Burney, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 262, quoting People v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 309 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 605 , 180 P.3d 351 ]; see also People v. Monterroso (2004) 34 Cal.4th 743, 788 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 101 P.3d 956 ] ["`[A] trial court need not instruct that the absence of prio

22
People v. Crawfordgreen
calctapp · 1968 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

22
People v. Wadegreen
cal · 1959 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

22
People v. St. Martingreen
cal · 1970 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

22
People v. Hoodgreen
cal · 1969 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

22
People v. Carmengreen
cal · 1951 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal. Rptr. 618 , 462 P.2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal. Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal. App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal. Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal. App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal. Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal. App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 527 ].) (2) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever — no matter

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal. Rptr. 618 , 462 P.2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal. Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal. App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal. Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal. App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal. Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal. App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 527 ].) (2) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever — no matter

22
People v. Gonzalesgreen
calctapp · 1970 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

22
People v. Rodriguezgreen
calctapp · 1969 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970
2 sentences

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

1970Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 463 P.2d 390 ]; People v. Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444, 449 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 462 P. 2d 370 ]; People v. Wade, 53 Cal.2d 322, 334 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 683 , 348 P.2d 116 ]; People v. Gonzales, 4 Cal.App.3d 593, 608 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; People v. Rodriguez, 274 Cal.App.2d 487, 494-495 [ 79 Cal.Rptr. 187 ]; People v. Crawford, 259 Cal.App.2d 874, 877 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 527 ].) On the other hand, if the defendant requests an instruction, it must be given on an issue if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatever—no matter how incredibl

22
People v. Koppgreen
calctapp5d · 2019 · cited in 5 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2022
2 sentences

2022(Cowan, at p. 34 [“On the ability-to-pay issue, we hold that, upon proper objection, a sentencing court must allow a defendant facing imposition of a minimum restitution fine or court operations and court facilities assessments an opportunity to present evidence and argument why these financial exactions exceed his ability to pay,” italics added]; People v. Kopp, supra, at p. 95 [agreeing with Dueñas to the extent it holds that “due process requires the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing and ascertain a defendant's ability to pay before it imposes court facilities and court opera

2022(See People v. Cowan (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 32 , 50, review granted June 17, 2020, S261952 [“upon proper objection, the court must hold a hearing at which defendant will have an opportunity to bear his burden of proof on the issue of ability to pay” (italics added)]; People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 95 , review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S257844 [agreeing with Dueñas to the extent it holds that “due process ‘requires the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing and ascertain a defendant’s ability to pay before it imposes court facilities and court operations assessments . . .’ if th

15
People v. Sedenogreen
cal · 1974 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–2008
2 sentences

1978“It is well settled that if the defendant requests an instruction it must be given if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatsoever... (see People v. Tidwell, 3 Cal.3d 82 , 86 . . . .” (People v. Vasquez (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 81, 88 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 181 ].) Even where there is conflicting evidence on this issue, nevertheless the law requires that “ ‘[h]owever incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true’ ” (Italics in original.) (People v. Modesto (1963) 59 Cal.2d 722, 729 [ 31 C

1978“It is well settled that if the defendant requests an instruction it must be given if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatsoever... (see People v. Tidwell, 3 Cal.3d 82 , 86 . . . .” (People v. Vasquez (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 81, 88 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 181 ].) Even where there is conflicting evidence on this issue, nevertheless the law requires that “ ‘[h]owever incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true’ ” (Italics in original.) (People v. Modesto (1963) 59 Cal.2d 722, 729 [ 31 C

12
People v. Tidwellgreen
cal · 1970 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1978
2 sentences

1978Its inquiry then focuses on the sufficiency of such evidence. (4) "It is well settled that if the defendant requests an instruction it must be given if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatsoever ... (see People v. Tidwell, 3 Cal.3d 82, 86 ...." ( People v. Vasquez (1972) 29 Cal. App.3d 81, 88 [ 105 Cal. Rptr. 181 ].) Even where there is conflicting evidence on this issue, nevertheless the law requires that "`[ h ] owever incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true. '" (Ital

1978“It is well settled that if the defendant requests an instruction it must be given if there is any evidence on that issue deserving of any consideration whatsoever... (see People v. Tidwell, 3 Cal.3d 82 , 86 . . . .” (People v. Vasquez (1972) 29 Cal.App.3d 81, 88 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 181 ].) Even where there is conflicting evidence on this issue, nevertheless the law requires that “ ‘[h]owever incredible the testimony of a defendant may be he is entitled to an instruction based upon the hypothesis that it is entirely true’ ” (Italics in original.) (People v. Modesto (1963) 59 Cal.2d 722, 729 [ 31 C

12
People v. Memrogreen
cal · 1995 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026(See People v. Neidinger (2006) 40 Cal.4th 67 , 8 72 [it is constitutionally permissible to place on the defendant the burden of proving affirmative defenses, as long as the defendant is not required to negate an element of the offense].) “ ‘A trial court’s duty to instruct, sua sponte, on particular defenses arises “ ‘only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1052 .)3 “Of course,

11
People v. Salasgreen
cal · 2006 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026(See People v. Neidinger (2006) 40 Cal.4th 67 , 8 72 [it is constitutionally permissible to place on the defendant the burden of proving affirmative defenses, as long as the defendant is not required to negate an element of the offense].) “ ‘A trial court’s duty to instruct, sua sponte, on particular defenses arises “ ‘only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1052 .)3 “Of course,

11
People v. Rodriguezgreen
cal · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
11
People v. Pensingergreen
cal · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
11
People v. Andersongreen
cal · 2011 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016(People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 293 ; see People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 996 .) When the defendant requests an instruction, “the court knows that the defendant is relying on that defense.

11
People v. Mentchgreen
cal · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
11
People v. Williamsgreen
cal · 1997 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016(Ibid.) Even where the defendant requests the instruction, the defendant is only entitled to it when “‘there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s “actual formation of specific intent.”’” (Ibid.; see People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 677 ; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 395 [having a dreamy look in the eyes, weird speech, being dazed and spaced out looking are not sufficient to establish diminished capacity by voluntary intoxication], superseded by statute on another ground as noted in Verdin v. Super

11
People v. Carpenterred
cal · 1997 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
11
People v. Burneygreen
cal · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
11
People v. Valenciagreen
cal · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
11
People v. Monterrosogreen
cal · 2004 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
11
People v. Dieguezgreen
calctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
11
People v. Marshallgreen
cal · 1997 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
11
People v. Williamsgreen
cal · 1999 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
11
People v. Phillipsgreen
cal · 1985 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
11
People v. Bensongreen
cal · 1990 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
11
Hagner v. United Statesgreen
cadc · 1931 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
11
People v. Vasquezgreen
calctapp · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
11
People v. Castillogreen
cal · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
11
People v. Moshergreen
cal · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
11
People v. Grahamgreen
cal · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (24)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Villanueva green
calctapp · 2008
1 sentence

2026(See People v. Neidinger (2006) 40 Cal.4th 67 , 8 72 [it is constitutionally permissible to place on the defendant the burden of proving affirmative defenses, as long as the defendant is not required to negate an element of the offense].) “ ‘A trial court’s duty to instruct, sua sponte, on particular defenses arises “ ‘only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1052 .)3 “Of course,

12026–2026
People v. Neidinger green
cal · 2006
1 sentence

2026(See People v. Neidinger (2006) 40 Cal.4th 67 , 8 72 [it is constitutionally permissible to place on the defendant the burden of proving affirmative defenses, as long as the defendant is not required to negate an element of the offense].) “ ‘A trial court’s duty to instruct, sua sponte, on particular defenses arises “ ‘only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1052 .)3 “Of course,

12026–2026
People v. Simon green
cal · 2016
1 sentence

2026(People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 133 .) i. June 25—Count One4 Fechner contends the court had a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the theories of self-defense and defense of property because he reasonably relied on them at trial, the theories were not inconsistent with his defense, and substantial evidence supported them.

12026–2026
People v. Lam Thanh Nguyen green
cal · 2015
1 sentence

2026(See People v. Neidinger (2006) 40 Cal.4th 67 , 8 72 [it is constitutionally permissible to place on the defendant the burden of proving affirmative defenses, as long as the defendant is not required to negate an element of the offense].) “ ‘A trial court’s duty to instruct, sua sponte, on particular defenses arises “ ‘only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1052 .)3 “Of course,

12026–2026
People v. Lopez green
calctapp · 1977
1 sentence

2025Jones admitted he was facing a lengthy sentence if convicted on all counts, 5 People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568 , 572–573, set guidelines for warnings that a trial court should use to caution a defendant when the defendant requests a waiver of appointed counsel in favor of self- representation pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). 6 and recognized he would not receive any “special privileges just because [he was] [self-]representing.” The trial court then asked Jones why he wanted to represent himself.

12025–2025
Faretta v. California green
scotus · 1975
1 sentence

2025Jones admitted he was facing a lengthy sentence if convicted on all counts, 5 People v. Lopez (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 568 , 572–573, set guidelines for warnings that a trial court should use to caution a defendant when the defendant requests a waiver of appointed counsel in favor of self- representation pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 (Faretta). 6 and recognized he would not receive any “special privileges just because [he was] [self-]representing.” The trial court then asked Jones why he wanted to represent himself.

12025–2025
People v. Dueñas green
calctapp5d · 2019
2 sentences

2023(Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1168 .) The court also concluded that the execution of a restitution fine under section 1202.4 ‘must be stayed unless and until the trial court holds an ability to pay hearing and concludes that the defendant has the present ability to pay the restitution fine. ( Dueñas, supra, at p. 1164 .)” (People v. Thompson (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 69 , 120.) In Kopp, a majority of the court agreed with Dueñas that with respect to nonpunitive assessments, “due process requires the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing and ascertain a defendant’s ability to pay

2023(Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1168 .) The court also concluded that the execution of a restitution fine under section 1202.4 ‘must be stayed unless and until the trial court holds an ability to pay hearing and concludes that the defendant has the present ability to pay the restitution fine. ( Dueñas, supra, at p. 1164 .)” (People v. Thompson (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 69 , 120.) In Kopp, a majority of the court agreed with Dueñas that with respect to nonpunitive assessments, “due process requires the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing and ascertain a defendant’s ability to pay

12023–2023
People v. Overman green
calctapp · 2005
1 sentence

2022Moreover, in People v. Overman (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1344 , we held that “the trial court must attempt to elicit a defendant’s express waiver of a limitations period defense, when the defendant requests the instruction and it appears that the lesser included offense is, or may be, time-barred.” (Id. at p. 1359.) Thus, if the issue had been raised below, it would have been the trial court’s duty to attempt to elicit a waiver.

12022–2022
People v. Stevenson green
calctapp · 1978
2 sentences

2016Its inquiry then focuses on the sufficiency of such evidence.” (People v. Stevenson (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 976, 985 ; see People v. Elize 11 (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 615 [court should instruct on self-defense if there is substantial evidence of self-defense and the defendant requests an instruction].) In this context, substantial evidence is evidence that, if believed, would be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.

2016Its inquiry then focuses on the sufficiency of such evidence.” (People v. Stevenson (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 976, 985 ; see People v. Elize 11 (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 615 [court should instruct on self-defense if there is substantial evidence of self-defense and the defendant requests an instruction].) In this context, substantial evidence is evidence that, if believed, would be sufficient for a reasonable jury to find a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.

12016–2016
DE JESUS VERDIN v. Superior Court of Riverside County green
cal · 2008
1 sentence

2016(Ibid.) Even where the defendant requests the instruction, the defendant is only entitled to it when “‘there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s “actual formation of specific intent.”’” (Ibid.; see People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 677 ; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 395 [having a dreamy look in the eyes, weird speech, being dazed and spaced out looking are not sufficient to establish diminished capacity by voluntary intoxication], superseded by statute on another ground as noted in Verdin v. Super

12016–2016
People v. Eid green
calctapp · 2010
12016–2016
People v. Cottone green
cal · 2013
1 sentence

2016(People v. Cottone (2013) 57 Cal.4th 269, 293 ; see People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 996 .) When the defendant requests an instruction, “the court knows that the defendant is relying on that defense.

12016–2016
People v. Lord green
calctapp · 1994
12015–2015
People v. Stevens green
cal · 2009
12015–2015
Crawford v. Washington green
scotus · 2004
12014–2014
People v. Nelson green
calctapp · 2010
12014–2014
People v. Cowan green
cal · 2010
12014–2014
People v. Prettyman red
cal · 1996
12008–2008
People v. Raley red
cal · 1992
12003–2003
United States v. Charles Robert White green
ca5 · 1980
11991–1991
United States v. Bennie Ray Winship, A/K/A Nip, and Jerry Bice green
ca5 · 1984
11991–1991
State v. Allen green
iowa · 1980
11991–1991
United States v. Louis Mabry Powell green
ca9 · 1974
11991–1991
People v. Bowen green
calctapp · 1971
11978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 352 (5) CA § Cal. Government Code § 70373 (4) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 187 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 52 (1986–2024) LA 41 (1984–2025) CA 27 (1970–2026) TN 19 (1999–2024) MO 18 (1917–2025) KS 17 (1907–2024) NC 15 (1984–2025) IN 14 (1983–2025) NY 13 (2011–2024) MN 12 (2004–2019) DC 11 (1988–2024) MA 10 (1989–2026) FL 10 (1996–2005) UT 9 (1983–2020) MI 9 (1976–2025) ID 8 (1980–2017) IL 8 (1999–2024) CO 6 (2003–2025) MD 5 (1985–2019) CT 5 (1989–2020) PA 3 (1998–2009) VA 3 (1991–2008) AL 3 (1989–2016) NM 3 (1980–2019) IA 3 (1967–2018) AZ 3 (1968–2014) SC 2 (1989–2015) NE 2 (1934–2016) OK 2 (1931–1973) NH 2 (1985–2015) WY 2 (1990–2008) NJ 2 (1995–2024) AK 2 (1984–1988) OH 2 (2006–2007)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check