Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
23 California opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2026 3 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Stitelygreen2 sentences2014(Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 514.) However, in People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108, 119 , the Supreme Court overruled Geiger. 2014(Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 514.) However, in People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108, 119 , the Supreme Court overruled Geiger. | 2 | 2 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2026We are not persuaded. 13 Not only are we bound by Birks (Auto Equity, supra, 57 Cal.2d at p. 455 ), but Gomez Herrera is not entitled to an instruction on “lesser offenses which are not necessarily included in the charge.” (Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 136 .) Birks does not articulate an exception or limitation. 2021Defendant’s argument that he was entitled to a lesser related offense instruction under state law principles and as a component of his constitutional right to present a defense is foreclosed by Birks and Valentine (see Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 136 ; Valentine, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388 ), and we are bound by those cases (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [“The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California”]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Valentinegreen2 sentences2024Partington points to this passage as holding that “the defendant is permitted to ‘argue to the jury that his culpability was as one who [committed the lesser related offense] but not one who committed [the greater charged offense].’ ” (Quoting Valentine, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388 [alterations added by appellant].) He says this is the opening to revisit the issue 12 decided by Birks, because it creates the untenable situation where “counsel can present a lesser related offense defense, but the jury should never be instructed how to interpret that defense.” We disagree with his interpret 2021Defendant’s argument that he was entitled to a lesser related offense instruction under state law principles and as a component of his constitutional right to present a defense is foreclosed by Birks and Valentine (see Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 136 ; Valentine, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388 ), and we are bound by those cases (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [“The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California”]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. LAMgreen2 sentences2011(See People v. Lam (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 580, 583 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 ] [in a case involving claims of ineffective assistance of defense counsel for failing to request a lesser related offense instruction, the court said “even if counsel had requested the instruction, no reasonable possibility existed that the prosecutor and trial court would have agreed to it because no substantial evidence supported it” (italics added)].) The Supreme Court in People v. Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pages 123, 127-130 did say that a defendant could not unilaterally require the instruction on an uncharged les 2011(See People v. Lam (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 580, 583 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 877 ] [in a case involving claims of ineffective assistance of defense counsel for failing to request a lesser related offense instruction, the court said “even if counsel had requested the instruction, no reasonable possibility existed that the prosecutor and trial court would have agreed to it because no substantial evidence supported it” (italics added)].) The Supreme Court in People v. Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pages 123, 127-130 did say that a defendant could not unilaterally require the instruction on an uncharged les | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fostergreen2 sentences2011Accordingly, People v. Birles should not be read to require an uncharged lesser related offense instruction when the prosecutor agrees to it. “ ‘[T]here is no federal constitutional right of a defendant to compel the giving of lesser-related-offense instructions. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1344 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 658 , 242 P.3d 105 ]; see also People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1064 [defendant not entitled to instruction on lesser related offense even if supported by evidence].) Defendant is relying solely on the prosecutor’s acquiescence in the re 2011Accordingly, People v. Birles should not be read to require an uncharged lesser related offense instruction when the prosecutor agrees to it. “ ‘[T]here is no federal constitutional right of a defendant to compel the giving of lesser-related-offense instructions. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1344 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 658 , 242 P.3d 105 ]; see also People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1064 [defendant not entitled to instruction on lesser related offense even if supported by evidence].) Defendant is relying solely on the prosecutor’s acquiescence in the re | 1 | 1 |
People v. Butlergreen2 sentences2010(People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 310 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 777 P.2d 121 ]; People v. Butler (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1246 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) Second, the law does not obligate a trial court to grant a defendant’s request for a lesser related offense instruction even if substantial evidence supports the instruction. 2010(People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 310 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 777 P.2d 121 ]; People v. Butler (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1246 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) Second, the law does not obligate a trial court to grant a defendant’s request for a lesser related offense instruction even if substantial evidence supports the instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carreragreen2 sentences2010(People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 310 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 777 P.2d 121 ]; People v. Butler (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1246 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) Second, the law does not obligate a trial court to grant a defendant’s request for a lesser related offense instruction even if substantial evidence supports the instruction. 2010(People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 310 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 348 , 777 P.2d 121 ]; People v. Butler (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1246 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 150 ].) Second, the law does not obligate a trial court to grant a defendant’s request for a lesser related offense instruction even if substantial evidence supports the instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kraftgreen2 sentences2010(People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1064 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 5 P.3d 68 ].) Third, a court errs if it instructs on a lesser related offense over the prosecutor’s objection. 2010(People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1064 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 5 P.3d 68 ].) Third, a court errs if it instructs on a lesser related offense over the prosecutor’s objection. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bartongreen2 sentences1998The characterization of unreasonable self-defense as a defense in People v. Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 329 , was overruled in People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 200-201 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 906 P.2d 531 ]. 1998The characterization of unreasonable self-defense as a defense in People v. Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 329 , was overruled in People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 200-201 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 906 P.2d 531 ]. | 1 | 1 |
Schad v. Arizonagreen2 sentences1995In that case, the United States Supreme Court overturned a portion of Alabama’s death penalty law that had prohibited lesser included offense instructions from being given in capital cases, holding that such provision violated the defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. “ ‘The goal of the Beck rule ... is to eliminate the distortion of the factfinding process that is created when the jury is forced into an all-or-nothing choice between capital murder and innocence.’ ” (Schad v. Arizona (1991) 501 U.S. 624, 646-647 [ 115 L.Ed.2d 555, 575 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 ].) Subsequently, courts 1995In that case, the United States Supreme Court overturned a portion of Alabama’s death penalty law that had prohibited lesser included offense instructions from being given in capital cases, holding that such provision violated the defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. “ ‘The goal of the Beck rule ... is to eliminate the distortion of the factfinding process that is created when the jury is forced into an all-or-nothing choice between capital murder and innocence.’ ” (Schad v. Arizona (1991) 501 U.S. 624, 646-647 [ 115 L.Ed.2d 555, 575 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 ].) Subsequently, courts | 1 | 1 |
People v. Torogreen2 sentences1992(People v. Toro (1989) 47 Cal.3d 966, 973 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 766 P.2d 577 ].) Where a defendant consents or acquiesces in the giving of a lesser related offense instruction, the defendant may lawfully be convicted of such offense. 1992(People v. Toro (1989) 47 Cal.3d 966, 973 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 766 P.2d 577 ].) Where a defendant consents or acquiesces in the giving of a lesser related offense instruction, the defendant may lawfully be convicted of such offense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Geiger
red
2 sentences2017Section 1009 thus “ ‘authorizes amendment of an information at any stage of the proceedings provided the amendment does not change the offense charged in the original information to one not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination.’ ” (People v. Hamernik (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 412, 424 ; People v. Ochoa (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1232 .) Citing Harris v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 624 (Harris), People v. Chapman (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 597 , and People v. McKay (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 59 , Iraheta argues 14 Iraheta also attempts to distinguish Whitfield by arguing tha 2011This uncertainty creates an increased likelihood that trial and appellate courts will disagree in a particular case, and that appellate precedents will conflict, thus detracting from the fair and efficient administration of justice.”].) Thus, the reasons given in People v. Birles for overruling People v. Geiger, supra, 35 Cal.3d 510 were not restricted to the impact of a lesser related offense instruction upon the prosecution, but involved other difficulties with such an instruction. | 10 | 1985–2017 |
People v. Birks
green
2 sentences2021Defendant’s argument that he was entitled to a lesser related offense instruction under state law principles and as a component of his constitutional right to present a defense is foreclosed by Birks and Valentine (see Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 136 ; Valentine, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388 ), and we are bound by those cases (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [“The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California”]). 2021Defendant’s argument that he was entitled to a lesser related offense instruction under state law principles and as a component of his constitutional right to present a defense is foreclosed by Birks and Valentine (see Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 136 ; Valentine, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1388 ), and we are bound by those cases (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [“The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California”]). | 7 | 1998–2026 |
People v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2018As far as the crime of involuntary manslaughter, the court was prohibited from giving that instruction because the crime does "not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle." (§ 192, subd. (b).) As far as crime of gross vehicular manslaughter, the court properly refused Wolfe's request for that instruction because the prosecution did not consent to the giving of the lesser related offense instruction and because of the California Supreme Court's ruling in Sanchez , supra , 24 Cal.4th 983 , 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 16 P.3d 118 . 2018As far as the crime of involuntary manslaughter, the court was prohibited from giving that instruction because the crime does "not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle." (§ 192, subd. (b).) As far as crime of gross vehicular manslaughter, the court properly refused Wolfe's request for that instruction because the prosecution did not consent to the giving of the lesser related offense instruction and because of the California Supreme Court's ruling in Sanchez , supra , 24 Cal.4th 983 , 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 16 P.3d 118 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. McKay
green
1 sentence2017Section 1009 thus “ ‘authorizes amendment of an information at any stage of the proceedings provided the amendment does not change the offense charged in the original information to one not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination.’ ” (People v. Hamernik (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 412, 424 ; People v. Ochoa (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1232 .) Citing Harris v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 624 (Harris), People v. Chapman (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 597 , and People v. McKay (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 59 , Iraheta argues 14 Iraheta also attempts to distinguish Whitfield by arguing tha | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Harris v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2017Section 1009 thus “ ‘authorizes amendment of an information at any stage of the proceedings provided the amendment does not change the offense charged in the original information to one not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination.’ ” (People v. Hamernik (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 412, 424 ; People v. Ochoa (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1232 .) Citing Harris v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 624 (Harris), People v. Chapman (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 597 , and People v. McKay (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 59 , Iraheta argues 14 Iraheta also attempts to distinguish Whitfield by arguing tha | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Chapman
green
1 sentence2017Section 1009 thus “ ‘authorizes amendment of an information at any stage of the proceedings provided the amendment does not change the offense charged in the original information to one not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination.’ ” (People v. Hamernik (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 412, 424 ; People v. Ochoa (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1232 .) Citing Harris v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 624 (Harris), People v. Chapman (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 597 , and People v. McKay (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 59 , Iraheta argues 14 Iraheta also attempts to distinguish Whitfield by arguing tha | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Hamernik
green
1 sentence2017Section 1009 thus “ ‘authorizes amendment of an information at any stage of the proceedings provided the amendment does not change the offense charged in the original information to one not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination.’ ” (People v. Hamernik (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 412, 424 ; People v. Ochoa (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1232 .) Citing Harris v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 624 (Harris), People v. Chapman (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 597 , and People v. McKay (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 59 , Iraheta argues 14 Iraheta also attempts to distinguish Whitfield by arguing tha | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Ochoa
green
1 sentence2017Section 1009 thus “ ‘authorizes amendment of an information at any stage of the proceedings provided the amendment does not change the offense charged in the original information to one not shown by the evidence taken at the preliminary examination.’ ” (People v. Hamernik (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 412, 424 ; People v. Ochoa (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1227, 1232 .) Citing Harris v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 624 (Harris), People v. Chapman (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 597 , and People v. McKay (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d Supp. 59 , Iraheta argues 14 Iraheta also attempts to distinguish Whitfield by arguing tha | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Black
red
1 sentence2007In Geiger , the California Supreme Court concluded that a defendant has a state constitutional right to a lesser related offense instruction under certain circumstances. ( Geiger, supra , 35 Cal.4th at p. 514 .) Govan concedes in his reply brief that Geiger was overruled by Birks . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Wickersham
green
2 sentences1998The characterization of unreasonable self-defense as a defense in People v. Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 329 , was overruled in People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 200-201 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 906 P.2d 531 ]. 1998The characterization of unreasonable self-defense as a defense in People v. Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 329 , 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 , was overruled in People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 200-201 , 47 Cal. Rptr.2d 569 , 906 P.2d 531 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Beck v. Alabama
green
2 sentences1995Defendant’s claim of entitlement to a lesser related offense instruction is not strengthened by his invocation of Beck v. Alabama (1980) 447 U.S. 625 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 392 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 ]. 1995Defendant’s claim of entitlement to a lesser related offense instruction is not strengthened by his invocation of Beck v. Alabama (1980) 447 U.S. 625 [ 65 L.Ed.2d 392 , 100 S.Ct. 2382 ]. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. Joshua H.
green
1 sentence1995(People v. Farrow, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1626 .) Defendant was charged with a violation of section 422.7, based on an allegation that defendant brandished a firearm, in violation of section 417. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
People v. James
green
1 sentence1992The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser offense. ( 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 388 .) Similarly, in People v. Geiger, supra, 35 Cal. 3d 510, 517 , the case which recognized the lesser related offense doctrine, the same acts of breaking a window and entry into a closed building, could have constituted the greater (burglary) or the lesser (vandalism) offenses. *1030 In the case at bench, defendant does not contend he committed the act with which he is charged but possessed a different mental state, or that there were other circumstance | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Cardenas
green
2 sentences1988(People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 647 P.2d 569 ].) Forte’s request for a lesser-related offense instruction of trespass should also have been given. 1988(People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 647 P.2d 569 ].) Forte’s request for a lesser-related offense instruction of trespass should also have been given. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.
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.