credibility defense in California

2026(People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 .) “‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ not ‘whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.’”’” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 ; see also People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186 , 201 fn. 8 [substantial evidence is that which “a reasonable jury could find persuasive”].) “In determining whether the evidence is 11 sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if belie

2026(People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 .) “‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ not ‘whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.’”’” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 ; see also People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186 , 201 fn. 8 [substantial evidence is that which “a reasonable jury could find persuasive”].) “In determining whether the evidence is 11 sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if belie

2026(People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 .) “‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ not ‘whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.’”’” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 ; see also People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186 , 201 fn. 8 [substantial evidence is that which “a reasonable jury could find persuasive”].) “In determining whether the evidence is 11 sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if belie

2026In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.’” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967 , 982–983 (Salas).) “In contrast to lesser included offenses, a trial court’s duty to instruct, sua sponte, or on its own initiative, on particular defenses is more limited, arising ‘only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence su

2026(People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 551 .) “‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt ….” [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 288 .) b.

2026(People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 551 .) “‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt ….” [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 288 .) b.

2026(People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 .) “‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ not ‘whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.’”’” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 ; see also People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186 , 201 fn. 8 [substantial evidence is that which “a reasonable jury could find persuasive”].) “In determining whether the evidence is 11 sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if belie

2026(People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 ; People v. Crew (2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 835 .) “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967 , 982.) Whether a trial court properly instructed a jury is a question of law that we review de novo.

2022Moreover, beyond the combined impact of the instructions, the jury had the opportunity to assess defendant’s intent and state of mind in hearing the testimony of the witnesses and observing his actions on the surveillance video. 61 Defendant relies principally on People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 799-800 (Ford), a case in which the California Supreme Court determined that the failure to give the cautionary instruction was prejudicial error.

2018Moreover, beyond the combined impact of the instructions, the jury had the opportunity to assess defendant’s intent and state of mind in hearing the testimony of the witnesses and observing his actions on the surveillance video. 89 Defendant relies principally on People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 799-800 (Ford), a case in which the California Supreme Court determined that the failure to give the cautionary instruction was prejudicial error.

2022To be clear, Zumini is entitled to present, in addition to his own testimony, witnesses to corroborate his account so that the jury can assess the credibility of the defense case. ( Crane, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 690–691; see Davis, supra, 50 63 Cal.2d at p. 657 [“Defendant was entitled to bolster his claims by corroborating testimony in his attempt to influence the jurors to a more favorable finding.”]; Minifie, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1066 [“A defendant who testifies that he acted from fear of a clan united against him is entitled to corroborate that testimony with evidence ‘tend[ing] in reas

2022To be clear, Zumini is entitled to present, in addition to his own testimony, witnesses to corroborate his account so that the jury can assess the credibility of the defense case. ( Crane, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 690–691; see Davis, supra, 50 63 Cal.2d at p. 657 [“Defendant was entitled to bolster his claims by corroborating testimony in his attempt to influence the jurors to a more favorable finding.”]; Minifie, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 1066 [“A defendant who testifies that he acted from fear of a clan united against him is entitled to corroborate that testimony with evidence ‘tend[ing] in reas

2023(People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 243 (McCarrick).) “ ‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citation.] ‘On appeal, we likewise ask only whether the requested instruction was supported by substantial evidence — evidence that, if believed by a rational jury, would have raised a reasonable doubt as to’ an element of the crime in question.” (People v.

2023The Court Correctly Refused to Give CALCRIM No. 522 “ ‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citation.] ‘On appeal, we likewise ask only whether the requested instruction was supported by substantial evidence — evidence that, if believed by a rational jury, would have raised a reasonable doubt as to’ an element of the crime in question.” (People v. Mitchell (201

2016(People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 996-997 .) “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt . . . .’ [Citations.]” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982-983 .) Thus, whether the trial court in this case erred in not instructing the jury on defendant’s right to defend his property turns on whether defendant was relying on that theory or offered substantial evid

2014“A trial court’s responsibility to instruct on accident . . . generally extends no further than the obligation to provide, upon request, a pinpoint instruction relating the evidence to the mental element required for the charged crime.” (People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 997 , italics omitted.) “A trial court must give a pinpoint instruction, even when requested, only if it is supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]” (People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 214-215 .) “‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determ

2006In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether "there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt." ( People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341, 351 , 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ; see People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158, 1180 , 270 Cal.Rptr. 286 , 791 P.2d 965 ; People v. Jeter (1964) 60 Cal.2d 671, 674 , 36 Cal. Rptr. 323 , 388 P.2d 355 ; People v. Simmons (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 573, 579 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 760 , and cases there cite

2006In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether "there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt." ( People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341, 351 , 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 916 ; see People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158, 1180 , 270 Cal.Rptr. 286 , 791 P.2d 965 ; People v. Jeter (1964) 60 Cal.2d 671, 674 , 36 Cal. Rptr. 323 , 388 P.2d 355 ; People v. Simmons (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 573, 579 , 261 Cal.Rptr. 760 , and cases there cite

2016(People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1049 ; People v. Lee (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1426 .) “‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ not ‘whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.’”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 ; accord, People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 823 .) “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, w

2016(People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1049 ; People v. Lee (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1426 .) “‘Substantial evidence is “evidence sufficient ‘to deserve consideration by the jury,’ not ‘whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.’”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 ; accord, People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 823 .) “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, w

2014Self-Defense “Perfect self-defense requires that a defendant have an honest and reasonable belief in the need to defend himself or herself.” 10 (People v. Rodarte, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 1168; accord, People v. Valenzuela (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1227 .) Gonzales argues: “The testimony of Officer Flores and the physical evidence of Gonzales’ broken glasses constituted substantial evidence of self defense.

2013(See People v. Watson (2000) 22 Cal.4th 220, 222 ; People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 823 ; People v. Lee (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1426 .) “Substantial evidence in this context „“ is „evidence sufficient “to deserve consideration by the jury,” not “whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak.”‟” [Citation.]‟ [Citation.]” ( Larsen, supra, at p. 823 , quoting from People v. Wilson (2005) 36 Cal.4th 309, 331 .) “„In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but

2024(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1200 .) “ ‘Errors in jury instructions are questions of law, which we review de novo.’ ” (People v. Fenderson (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 625, 642 .) An appellate court cannot set aside a judgment on the basis of instructional error unless, after an examination of the entire record, the court concludes that the error has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

2021(See People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 583 [“‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.”’”]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1200 [“The trial court’s determination of whether an instruction should be given must be made without reference to the credibility of the evidence.”].) In context, however, the court’s statements reflect a ruling there was no substa

2021(People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1 , 39–40 [“ ‘unsupported theories should not be presented to the jury’ ”].) “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 .) leaving the scene under Vehicle Code section 20001.

2021You may not find the defendant guilty of <insert crime[s]> unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) acted with the required intent.” Defendant cites to the principle that “When a legally correct instruction is requested, however, it should be given ‘if it is supported by substantial evidence, that is, evidence sufficient to deserve jury consideration.’ ” (People v. Wilkins (2013) 56 Cal.4th 333, 347 , citing People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39 .) In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine th

2016(People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 .) “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341, 351 .) However, a trial court has no duty to instruct the jury on an inapplicable defense.

2014(Russell, at p. 1430.) “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.’” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 , quoting People v. Jones (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 341, 351 .) The trial court, however, is not required to instruct on a claim-of-right defense unless there is substantial evidence to support an inference that the defendant acted with a subjective belief that h

2026(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) 9 III.

2024(Simon, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 133 [“We review de novo a trial court’s decision not to give an imperfect self-defense instruction.”]; People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705 [“On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense.”]; see People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1217 [“‘Whether or not to give any particular instruction in any particular case entails the resolution of a mixed question of law and fact [and] . . . should be examined without deference.’”].) B.

2026(People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 551 .) “‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt ….” [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 288 .) b.

2026(People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 551 .) “‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt ….” [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 288 .) b.

2024(People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132, 134 (Simon).) “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether ‘there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.’” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982-983 ; Larsen, at pp. 823-824.) In deciding defense “whenever there is evidence substantial enough to merit consideration by the jury that under this doctrine the defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter.” (Ibid.) 12 The s

2021But the trial court erred in relying on those circumstances to conclude defendant was purely delusional.11 “In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 ), and a court is not permitted to concern itself with inconsistencies in the evidence (Millbrook, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1137 ), rather the court must “consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant.” (Campbell, supra, 51 Cal.App.5th at p. 501; Brothers, supra, 23

2021In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt . . . .” [Citations.]’ 13 [Citations.] On appeal, we likewise ask only whether the requested instruction was supported by substantial evidence . . . .” (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 288 .) “Penal Code section 26 declares duress to be a perfect defense against criminal charges when the person charged ‘committed the act

2018Analysis The duress defense is available where "the act was done under such threats or menaces that [the defendant] had (1) an actual belief his life was threatened and (2) reasonable cause for such belief." (People v. Heath (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 892, 900 (Heath); see CALCRIM No. 3402 ["defendant's belief that [his] life was in immediate 7 danger must have been reasonable" considering "what a reasonable person in the same position as the defendant would have believed"].) "The duress defense, through its immediacy requirement, negates an element of the crime - the intent to commit the act." (He

2021Applicable law and analysis “The trial court is charged with instructing upon every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence, including defenses that are not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.” (People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047 .) “ ‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction, the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citation.] ‘On appeal, we likewise ask only whet

2016(People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047 .) In deciding whether there is substantial evidence, "the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only whether 'there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.' " (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 .) Duress is available as a defense to defendants who commit a crime "under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to and did believe their lives would be endangered if they refused." (§ 26, subd.