jury understood instruction in California

2026(People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 [“ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ”].) In arguing otherwise, Moore relies on Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 U.S. 307 (Franklin).

2026(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 (Cole).) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 .) “Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.” (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852 (Sanchez).) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonst

2026(People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 ; People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58 , 67-68 [“A 20 defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.”]; People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 192 [“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.”].) The two paragraphs in the instruction defined a

2025(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58 , 67–68.) “We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation, and we presume jurors can 2 The trial court’s discussion with counsel about jury instructions was generally unreported except for disagreements, which were placed on

2026The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 ; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) B.

2017Because the jury was told Gran was convicted of first degree murder and the lying-in-wait special circumstance was found true as to him, defendant claims, the jury likely found defendant 40. guilty of first degree murder without an evaluation of her mental state, thereby requiring reversal or reduction of her first degree murder conviction.42 “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘ “[T]he c

2026The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 ; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) B.

2024Applicable Legal Principles “In criminal cases, even absent a request, a trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on all general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.” (People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 179 .) “[N]o particular form is required as long as the instructions are complete and correctly state the law. [Citation.] In considering a 10. claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides .… The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defe

2026(People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 ; People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58 , 67-68 [“A 20 defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.”]; People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 192 [“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.”].) The two paragraphs in the instruction defined a

2025(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 ; see People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 [“If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction”].) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire cha

2021Jury instructions are not scrutinized under the void-for-vagueness doctrine that applies to penal statutes because “an instruction does not establish the elements of a crime, but merely attempts to explain a statutory definition.” (People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 901 .) “Rather, when it is argued [that an] instruction is so vague and confusing as to violate fundamental ideas of fairness, ‘we inquire “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” (Ibid.) Applying this standard here, we conclude th

2019In evaluating whether a jury instruction provides inadequate guidance, we ask “whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the charge as defendant asserts. [Citations.] We determine how it is reasonably likely the jury understood the instruction, and whether the instruction, so understood, accurately reflects applicable law.” (People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 899 (Raley).) “[W]hen it is argued the instruction is so vague and confusing as to violate fundamental ideas of fairness, ‘we inquire “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged

2026(People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327 , 382.) “ ‘ “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant. [Citations.]” ’ [Citation.] ‘Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) C.

2026(People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 ; People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768 , 815-816.) “ ‘ “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” ’ ” (People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327 , 382.) We presume that jurors are capable of understanding and correlating the court’s instructions and we further presume those instructions were followed by the jury.

2015We therefore conclude that he has failed to “demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58 , 67–68; accord, People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 ; Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 .) and thus was not reasonably foreseeable and not a natural and probable consequence of the target crime.” (Smith, at p. 617.) Defendants did not adopt this approach, possibly because neither was willing to go beyond the hypothetical and actually identify who was “the perpetrator” that kill

2014We discern no “reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67-68 ; accord, Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 .) “ ‘A permissive inference violates the Due Process Clause only if the suggested conclusion is not one that reason and common sense justify . . . .’ ” (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 180 , quoting Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 U.S. 307, 314-315 .) In addition, that construction has not sufficient heft to overcome our Supreme Court’s repeated approval of the principles

2026(People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 ; People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768 , 815-816.) “ ‘ “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” ’ ” (People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327 , 382.) We presume that jurors are capable of understanding and correlating the court’s instructions and we further presume those instructions were followed by the jury.

2025(People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 ; People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768 , 815–816.) “ ‘ “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” ’ ” (People v. Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 382.) We assume that jurors are intelligent and capable of understanding the instructions.

2025(People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1 , 66.) “A trial court ‘is obligated to instruct the jury on all general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence, whether or not the defendant makes a formal request.’” (Ibid.) “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58 , 67-68; see People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446, 475 [“relevant inquiry … is whether, ‘in the con

2025As the Supreme Court recently stressed, “ ‘ “[a] defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the 5 defendant.” ’ ” (People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401 , 492 (Hin).) In determining whether a jury may have erroneously interpreted an instruction, we assume that “ ‘ “ ‘jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Sattiewhite (2014) 59 Cal.4th 446, 475 (Satti

2025Not so. “ ‘ “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 905 (Covarrubias).) Here, the trial court instructed that, under CALCRIM No. 1191A, the jury

2025Not so. “ ‘ “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 905 (Covarrubias).) Here, the trial court instructed that, under CALCRIM No. 1191A, the jury

2026Our Supreme Court has declared “‘[i]t is fundamental that jurors are presumed to be intelligent and capable of understanding and applying the court’s instructions.’ [Citation.] ‘“A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.”’” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 433 (Bryant et al.).) We cannot presume the jury misunderstood or failed to follow the court’s instructions on the law.

2023We see no constitutional impediment to allowing a jury, so instructed, to find a defendant guilty of more than one indistinguishable act, providing the three minimum prerequisites heretofore discussed are satisfied.” (Id. at p. 321.) “ ‘ “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant. [Citations.]” [Citation.] “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a considera

2026(People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1202 ; People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) A defendant who argues the jury erroneously interpreted an instruction must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in an erroneous way.

2024(People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 .) We “must also consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction,” and we “ ‘ “assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” ’ ” (People v. Young (2005) 3

2014Reading the instruction as a whole, we do not believe that there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction as Cuevas posits (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 525-526 ), particularly in light of defense counsel’s closing argument emphasizing that “element no. 4 is linked to element no. 2.

2013If the meaning of instructions as communicated to the jury was unobjectionable, the instructions cannot be deemed erroneous.‖ (People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 276 ; see also Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 70–75; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 525 ; People v. Fonseca (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 543, 549 .) ― ‗[W]e look to whether it is reasonably likely the jury understood the instruction and correctly applied it.‘ [Citation.]‖ (People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1312 .) ― ‗The meaning of instructions is no[t] . . . determined under a strict test of whether a ―reaso

2025But Hin’s claim that the instruction is not legally correct and therefore violates his right to due process of law “is not of the 117 PEOPLE v. HIN Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. type that must be preserved by objection.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976, fn. 7 ; see § 1259 [“The appellate court may . . . review any instruction given, . . . even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.”].) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonst

2025(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 ; see People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 [“If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction”].) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire cha

2010Accordingly, there is "no reasonable likelihood" that the jury understood the instruction in the manner asserted by defendant. ( People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 36 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481 , 892 P.2d 1224 ]; see People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 662-663 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564 , 828 P.2d 705 ].) (25) Moreover, instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 3.41 was responsive to the evidence and to the arguments made at trial.

2010Accordingly, there is "no reasonable likelihood" that the jury understood the instruction in the manner asserted by defendant. ( People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 36 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 481 , 892 P.2d 1224 ]; see People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 662-663 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564 , 828 P.2d 705 ].) (25) Moreover, instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 3.41 was responsive to the evidence and to the arguments made at trial.

2026(People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1202 ; People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) A defendant who argues the jury erroneously interpreted an instruction must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in an erroneous way.

2025(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 ; see People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 [“If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction”].) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire cha

2025(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 ; see People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 [“If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction”].) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire cha

2023(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 .) “ ‘ “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 905 .) A reviewing court reads the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.

2026The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.’ ” (People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13 ; People v. 34.

2024Applicable Legal Principles “In criminal cases, even absent a request, a trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on all general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.” (People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 179 .) “[N]o particular form is required as long as the instructions are complete and correctly state the law. [Citation.] In considering a 10. claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides .… The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defe

2023The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 .) Where the “determination of error depends on the meaning communicated by an instruction, we must ascertain how a hypothetical ‘reasonable juror’ would have, or at least could have, understood the words in question.” (People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 670 .) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of a

2023The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 .) Where the “determination of error depends on the meaning communicated by an instruction, we must ascertain how a hypothetical ‘reasonable juror’ would have, or at least could have, understood the words in question.” (People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 670 .) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of a

2020The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 .) Where the “determination of error depends on the meaning communicated by an instruction, we must ascertain how a hypothetical ‘reasonable juror’ would have, or at least could have, understood the words in question.” (People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 670 .) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an

2018The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant's rights." (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 .) Where the "determination of error depends on the meaning communicated by an instruction, we must ascertain how a hypothetical 'reasonable juror' would have, or at least could have, understood the words in question." (People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 670 .) " '[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an

2026(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 (Cole).) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 .) “Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.” (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852 (Sanchez).) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonst

2025(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58 , 67–68.) “We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation, and we presume jurors can 2 The trial court’s discussion with counsel about jury instructions was generally unreported except for disagreements, which were placed on

2026(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 (Cole).) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 .) “Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.” (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852 (Sanchez).) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonst

2023(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) Defendant’s claim requires an evaluation of “ ‘ “the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 .) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant. [Citations.]’ ” (Ibid.) “Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are fu

2020(People v. Fiu (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 360, 370 .) We independently review whether an instruction correctly states the law (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ), and for all other challenges, we “assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 .) A defendant challenging a jury instruction “must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood

2018The instructions thus correctly stated the law. " 'When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.' " ( People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616 , 677, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 , 237 P.3d 474 , quoting People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758 , 803-804, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 211 , 187 P.3d 1041 .) The trial court's prohibition on "biblical referenc