evidence to support instruction in California

2025(People v. Schuller (2023) 15 Cal.5th 237 , 251.) 11. facts underlying the particular instruction exist.”’ [Citation.] ‘Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense.’” ( Thomas, supra, at p. 385 .) “In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the instruction, ‘we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.’” (In re Hampton (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 463 , 480, quoting People v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1137 .) We review defendant’s claim of instructional error de novo.

2020In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the instruction, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.” (Millbrook, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1137 .) “For the duty to instruct on a lesser included offense to arise, there must be ‘ “substantial evidence” [citation], “ ‘which, if accepted . . . , would absolve [the] defendant from guilt of the greater offense’ [citation] but not the lesser.” ’ [Citation.] Evidence is substantial if ‘a reasonable jury could find [it] persuasive.’ [Citation.] ‘In deciding whether there is substantial evidence of a lesser of

2026(People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 515 .) “[T]he existence of ‘any evidence, no matter how weak’ will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury.” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense was committed. [Citations.] Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an i

2026(People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 515 .) “[T]he existence of ‘any evidence, no matter how weak’ will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury.” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense was committed. [Citations.] Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an i

2026(People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 515 .) “[T]he existence of ‘any evidence, no matter how weak’ will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury.” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense was committed. [Citations.] Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an i

2026(People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 515 .) “[T]he existence of ‘any evidence, no matter how weak’ will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury.” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense was committed. [Citations.] Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an i

2026(People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 515 .) “[T]he existence of ‘any evidence, no matter how weak’ will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury.” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense was committed. [Citations.] Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an i

2026(People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 515 .) “[T]he existence of ‘any evidence, no matter how weak’ will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury.” (Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence from which a jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the lesser offense was committed. [Citations.] Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an i

2025(People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 538 .) In so doing, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant and resolve in his favor any doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence to support the instruction.

2025(People v. Millbrook (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1137 .) Based on our independent review, we conclude there was insufficient evidence of either subjectively or objectively provocative conduct to instruct the jury on heat of passion. “ ‘An instruction on a lesser included offense must be given only if there is substantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant committed the lesser, uncharged offense but not the greater, charged offense.’ ” (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 538 .) Evidence is substantial if a reasonable jury could find the existence of the

2014The degree of force is immaterial. [Citations.] There was no contradictory version of the evidence to support instruction on the lesser offense of grand theft from the person.” (People v. Jones, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 871 .) Bailey asserts the lesser included instructions on theft should have been given because there was a “scenario” where he may have been part of “an intended burglary to accomplish marijuana trafficking but [he had] no knowledge of a plan to commit a robbery,” and this scenario was “plausible” based on his trial testimony.

2014The degree of force is immaterial. [Citations.] There was no contradictory version of the evidence to support instruction on the lesser offense of grand theft from the person.” (People v. Jones, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 871 .) Bailey asserts the lesser included instructions on theft should have been given because there was a “scenario” where he may have been part of “an intended burglary to accomplish marijuana trafficking but [he had] no knowledge of a plan to commit a robbery,” and this scenario was “plausible” based on his trial testimony.

1992The degree of force is immaterial. ( People v. Clayton, supra, 89 Cal. App. at p. 411 ; People v. Lescallett (1981) 123 Cal. App.3d 487, 491 [ 176 Cal. Rptr. 687 ].) There was no contradictory version of the evidence to support instruction on the lesser offense of grand theft from the person.

1992(People v. Clayton, supra, 89 Cal.App. at p. 411 ; People v. Lescallett (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 487,491 [ 176 Cal.Rptr. 687 ].) There was no contradictory version of the evidence to support instruction on the lesser offense of grand theft from the person.

2025(People v. Wilson (2021) 11 Cal.5th 259, 295 .) 2.

2025(People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 30 ; People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 345 ; People v. Millbrook, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1137 .) B.

2025(People v. Brothers (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 24, 30 ; People v. Steskal (2021) 11 Cal.5th 332, 345 ; People v. Millbrook, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1137 .) B.

2024(See People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132 .) We review de novo the question of whether the trial court improperly failed to instruct on a lesser included offense (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 113 ), and in deciding the sufficiency of the evidence to support the instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.

2021(Wright, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 1483 .) The evidence shows Jamaa argued with defendant, that he loudly asked about his iPad, and that they then engaged in a physical fight.

2021(Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1131 ) And to the extent Kashfian contends McKissock failed to prove the existence of the oral contract, Kashfian doesn’t develop any arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support that claim.

2016A clearer preservation of the issue for appeal would be difficult to imagine. 9 For this reason, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that jury instructions on the kill zone theory are never required. ( Stone, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 137-138; [People v.] Smith [(2005)] 37 Cal.4th [733,] 746 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 124 P.3d 730 ]; Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 331 , fn. 6 . . . .)” (People v. McCloud (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 788, 802-803 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 ].) 10 Our conclusion in this regard pertains solely to the sufficiency of the evidence to support instruction on the kill zone the

2016A clearer preservation of the issue for appeal would be difficult to imagine. 9 For this reason, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that jury instructions on the kill zone theory are never required. ( Stone, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 137-138; [People v.] Smith [(2005)] 37 Cal.4th [733,] 746 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 124 P.3d 730 ]; Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 331 , fn. 6 . . . .)” (People v. McCloud (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 788, 802-803 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 ].) 10 Our conclusion in this regard pertains solely to the sufficiency of the evidence to support instruction on the kill zone the

2016A clearer preservation of the issue for appeal would be difficult to imagine. 9 For this reason, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that jury instructions on the kill zone theory are never required. ( Stone, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 137-138; [People v.] Smith [(2005)] 37 Cal.4th [733,] 746 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 124 P.3d 730 ]; Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 331 , fn. 6 . . . .)” (People v. McCloud (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 788, 802-803 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 ].) 10 Our conclusion in this regard pertains solely to the sufficiency of the evidence to support instruction on the kill zone the

2016A clearer preservation of the issue for appeal would be difficult to imagine. 9 For this reason, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that jury instructions on the kill zone theory are never required. ( Stone, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 137-138; [People v.] Smith [(2005)] 37 Cal.4th [733,] 746 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 124 P.3d 730 ]; Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 331 , fn. 6 . . . .)” (People v. McCloud (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 788, 802-803 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 ].) 10 Our conclusion in this regard pertains solely to the sufficiency of the evidence to support instruction on the kill zone the

2016A clearer preservation of the issue for appeal would be difficult to imagine. 9 For this reason, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that jury instructions on the kill zone theory are never required. ( Stone, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 137-138; [People v.] Smith [(2005)] 37 Cal.4th [733,] 746 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 124 P.3d 730 ]; Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 331 , fn. 6 . . . .)” (People v. McCloud (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 788, 802-803 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 ].) 10 Our conclusion in this regard pertains solely to the sufficiency of the evidence to support instruction on the kill zone the

2016A clearer preservation of the issue for appeal would be difficult to imagine. 9 For this reason, “the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that jury instructions on the kill zone theory are never required. ( Stone, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 137-138; [People v.] Smith [(2005)] 37 Cal.4th [733,] 746 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 , 124 P.3d 730 ]; Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 331 , fn. 6 . . . .)” (People v. McCloud (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 788, 802-803 [ 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 902 ].) 10 Our conclusion in this regard pertains solely to the sufficiency of the evidence to support instruction on the kill zone the

2015The Probation Violations Probation violation proceedings conducted pursuant to section 777 require a preponderance of the evidence to support the violation. (§ 777; In re Eddie M., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 501 .) Here, the record shows that both probation violations were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

2015(Tufunga, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 944 .) However, “a trial court has no obligation to instruct sua sponte on a defense supported by ‘minimal and insubstantial’ evidence [citation] . . . .” (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1152 (Barnett).) Defendant contends that the evidence was sufficient because he testified in his defense that he went into the house only to retrieve property belonging to Rosales.

2012(See Alpha & Omega, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 667 .) A party who “asserts a real property claim” may record a lis pendens. (§ 405.20.) Section 405.4 defines a “ ‘[r]eal property claim’ ” as “the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property . . . .” Thus, “[s]ection 405.4 does not define [a] ‘real property claim,’ or lack thereof, on the basis of the strength or weakness of the evidence to support that claim.

2012Instead, it is clear from the plain language of section 405.4 that a ‘real property claim’ is determined from the cause or causes of action set forth in the pleading(s).” (Alpha & Omega, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 667 .) Consistent with this definition, Civil Code section 47(b)(4) states in like terms that, for the privilege to apply, a recorded lis pendens must identify “an action . .. which affects” title or possession of real property.

1988In discussing the flight instruction, the reviewing court in Anjell mentioned merely that the defendant had voiced an “objection” to the instruction, and that the trial court had found there was “sufficient evidence to support the instruction.” (People v. Anjell, supra, 100 Cal.App.3d 189, 199 .) It would thus appear that, as to this instruction, sufficiency of the evidence to support the instruction was the only ground presented on appeal.

1987(Id. at p. 268; People v. Wiley, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 168 .) However, the condition of the body is a circumstance to be considered along with other circumstances in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support an instruction on murder by torture.