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.
21 California opinions name it 2 courts 1956–2022 10 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. Sánchezgreen2 sentences2021(Sánchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 461 .) The Supreme Court concluded defendant forfeited his claim, stating: “If defendant had wanted the court to modify the instruction, he should have requested it. 2021(See Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 461 [“If defendant had wanted the court to modify the instruction, he should have requested it. | 3 | 9 |
People v. Samaniegogreen2 sentences2021Specifically, 11 “ ‘ party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.’ ” (People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 , as modified (Apr. 16, 2009).) As appellant did not object or ask the court to modify the instruction, he has forfeited this claim. 2013(People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349-350 (Loza); People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118-1119 ; People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 849 (Canizalez); People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 (Samaniego).) Further, the failure to state that defendants could also be guilty of the nontarget offense of simple mayhem based on the natural and probable consequences instruction given here “made the instruction, at most, incomplete in the context of this case, not incorrect.” (Canizalez, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 .) Therefore, defendants were required | 2 | 3 |
People v. Lozagreen2 sentences2013(People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349-350 (Loza); People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118-1119 ; People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 849 (Canizalez); People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 (Samaniego).) Further, the failure to state that defendants could also be guilty of the nontarget offense of simple mayhem based on the natural and probable consequences instruction given here “made the instruction, at most, incomplete in the context of this case, not incorrect.” (Canizalez, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 .) Therefore, defendants were required 2013(People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349-350 (Loza); People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118-1119 ; People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 849 (Canizalez); People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 (Samaniego).) Further, the failure to state that defendants could also be guilty of the nontarget offense of simple mayhem based on the natural and probable consequences instruction given here “made the instruction, at most, incomplete in the context of this case, not incorrect.” (Canizalez, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 .) Therefore, defendants were required | 2 | 2 |
People v. Canizalezgreen2 sentences2013(People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349-350 (Loza); People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118-1119 ; People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 849 (Canizalez); People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 (Samaniego).) Further, the failure to state that defendants could also be guilty of the nontarget offense of simple mayhem based on the natural and probable consequences instruction given here “made the instruction, at most, incomplete in the context of this case, not incorrect.” (Canizalez, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 .) Therefore, defendants were required 2013(People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349-350 (Loza); People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118-1119 ; People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 849 (Canizalez); People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 (Samaniego).) Further, the failure to state that defendants could also be guilty of the nontarget offense of simple mayhem based on the natural and probable consequences instruction given here “made the instruction, at most, incomplete in the context of this case, not incorrect.” (Canizalez, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 .) Therefore, defendants were required | 2 | 2 |
People v. Hollowaygreen2 sentences2013(People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 154 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 212 , 91 P.3d 164 ].) 22 The jury was instructed: “A finding of guilt of first degree murder in counts three and five may be based upon either one or both of the proposed theories. 2013(People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 154 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 212 , 91 P.3d 164 ].) 22 The jury was instructed: “A finding of guilt of first degree murder in counts three and five may be based upon either one or both of the proposed theories. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Wardgreen1 sentence2021The trial court has no sua sponte duty to do so”]; see also People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 213-214 [no sua sponte duty to modify wording of certainty factor in CALJIC No. 2.92].) CALJIC No. 2.92 provided that the jury should consider “‘the extent to which the witness is either certain or uncertain of the identification.’” (Sanchez, supra, at p. 461.) Appellant argues that he did not forfeit his claim because the inclusion of the certainty factor in CALCRIM No. 315 violated his due process rights and therefore “affected [his] substantial rights” within the meaning of section 1259. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lam Thanh Nguyengreen1 sentence2021(See People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1051 [if the instruction is incomplete, defendant must request clarifying language].) Appellant’s argument is also without merit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Guiuangreen1 sentence2020(See, e.g., People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151 [“[t]he longstanding general rule is that the failure to request clarification of an instruction that is otherwise a correct statement of law forfeits an appellate claim of error based upon the instruction given”], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 ; People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 570 [failure to object at trial resulted in forfeiture of claim that instruction was “ ‘too general or incomplete’ ”].) In light of our conclusion, we do not address Ibach’s prejudicial error 4 argument. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rundlegreen1 sentence2020(See, e.g., People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151 [“[t]he longstanding general rule is that the failure to request clarification of an instruction that is otherwise a correct statement of law forfeits an appellate claim of error based upon the instruction given”], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 ; People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 570 [failure to object at trial resulted in forfeiture of claim that instruction was “ ‘too general or incomplete’ ”].) In light of our conclusion, we do not address Ibach’s prejudicial error 4 argument. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Doolingreen1 sentence2020(See, e.g., People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151 [“[t]he longstanding general rule is that the failure to request clarification of an instruction that is otherwise a correct statement of law forfeits an appellate claim of error based upon the instruction given”], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22 ; People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 570 [failure to object at trial resulted in forfeiture of claim that instruction was “ ‘too general or incomplete’ ”].) In light of our conclusion, we do not address Ibach’s prejudicial error 4 argument. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bolingreen1 sentence2015We agree. ―A party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.‖ (People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1024 ; see People v. Livingston (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1145, 1165 [defendant forfeited claim that instruction discussing proof by direct evidence should have included additional principles related to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that were contained in the instruction on circumstantial evidence]; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Livingstongreen1 sentence2015We agree. ―A party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.‖ (People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1024 ; see People v. Livingston (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1145, 1165 [defendant forfeited claim that instruction discussing proof by direct evidence should have included additional principles related to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that were contained in the instruction on circumstantial evidence]; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Warrengreen2 sentences1956(See People v. Warren, 16 Cal.2d 103, 117 [ 104 P.2d 1024 ],) 1 Appellant argues that there was prejudicial error in the giving of the following instruction: “No words of abuse, insult or reproach addressed to a person or uttered concerning him, howsoever grievous or opprobrious the words may be, if unaccompanied by any threat of great bodily injury or any assault upon the person or any trespass against lands or goods, will justify him in an assault with a deadly weapon and the provocation only of such words will not constitute a defense to a charge of having committed such an assault.” Counse 1956(See People v. Warren, 16 Cal.2d 103, 117 [ 104 P.2d 1024 ],) 1 Appellant argues that there was prejudicial error in the giving of the following instruction: “No words of abuse, insult or reproach addressed to a person or uttered concerning him, howsoever grievous or opprobrious the words may be, if unaccompanied by any threat of great bodily injury or any assault upon the person or any trespass against lands or goods, will justify him in an assault with a deadly weapon and the provocation only of such words will not constitute a defense to a charge of having committed such an assault.” Counse | 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. Wright
green
2 sentences2022Indeed, the Wright court held that the trial court had erred in refusing the defendant’s proposed alternative instruction on eyewitness identification, but found the error harmless. ( Wright, supra, at p. 1144 .) “If defendant had wanted the court to modify the instruction, he should have requested it. 2021(See People v. Lemcke (Oct. 10, 2018, S250108).) Moreover in his 2016 concurring opinion in Sánchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pages 494-498 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.), Justice Liu urged the court to reevaluate the certainty factor, making many of the same observations the court has made in Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pages 665-669. 41 had erred in refusing the defendant’s proposed alternative instruction on eyewitness identification, but found the error harmless. ( Wright, supra, at p. 1144 .) “If defendant had wanted the court to modify the instruction, he should have requested it. | 4 | 2015–2022 |
People v. Lemcke
green
2 sentences2022(CALCRIM No. 315 (2022 ed.); id., Bench Notes.) 6 The Attorney General argues Jones forfeited his claim of instructional error because his trial counsel did not object to inclusion of the certainty factor in CALCRIM No. 315 or ask the court to modify the instruction. 2021(See People v. Lemcke (Oct. 10, 2018, S250108).) Moreover in his 2016 concurring opinion in Sánchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pages 494-498 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.), Justice Liu urged the court to reevaluate the certainty factor, making many of the same observations the court has made in Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pages 665-669. 41 had erred in refusing the defendant’s proposed alternative instruction on eyewitness identification, but found the error harmless. ( Wright, supra, at p. 1144 .) “If defendant had wanted the court to modify the instruction, he should have requested it. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2013(People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349-350 (Loza); People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118-1119 ; People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 849 (Canizalez); People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 (Samaniego).) Further, the failure to state that defendants could also be guilty of the nontarget offense of simple mayhem based on the natural and probable consequences instruction given here “made the instruction, at most, incomplete in the context of this case, not incorrect.” (Canizalez, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 .) Therefore, defendants were required 2013(People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349-350 (Loza); People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1118-1119 ; People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 849 (Canizalez); People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 (Samaniego).) Further, the failure to state that defendants could also be guilty of the nontarget offense of simple mayhem based on the natural and probable consequences instruction given here “made the instruction, at most, incomplete in the context of this case, not incorrect.” (Canizalez, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 849 .) Therefore, defendants were required | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Chapman v. California
red
1 sentence2022We find no error.9 8 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman). 9 The People argue defendant has forfeited this claim of instructional and constitutional error by failing to object to CALCRIM No. 337 in the trial court or by asking the court to modify the instruction with “appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.” The People do not explain what modifying language defendant should have requested. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Rangel
green
1 sentence2021While the failure to object may be excused where the governing law at the time affords scarce grounds for objection (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1215 ), we note there was case law available to Hernandez to support an objection, like that made by defendant in Lemcke. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Guiton
green
1 sentence2021When the court gives an instruction that correctly states a principle of law, but has no application to the facts of the case, reversal is required only if it is reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to the defendant had the error not occurred.4 (People v. Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1129– 3 We reject the Attorney General’s suggestion that Solis forfeited this issue by failing to request the court modify the instruction to delete any reference to mutual combat. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Chatman
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 393 .) He did not. 15 the jury found defendant murdered Brian with premeditation and deliberation, a mental state wholly contrary to being motivated by imminent fear. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Lang
green
1 sentence2015We agree. ―A party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.‖ (People v. Lang (1989) 49 Cal.3d 991, 1024 ; see People v. Livingston (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1145, 1165 [defendant forfeited claim that instruction discussing proof by direct evidence should have included additional principles related to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that were contained in the instruction on circumstantial evidence]; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4t | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Felix
green
1 sentence2015Jury Instruction A. Background Facts Defense counsel requested the trial court modify the instruction regarding the evaluation of eyewitness testimony, CALCRIM No. 315, in a variety of ways including adding language that "[y]ou must view eyewitness testimony with caution and evaluate it carefully." The trial court refused Grey's requested instruction addition, citing People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126 (Wright) and People v. Felix (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 849 . 11 The trial court also noted it would instruct with CALCRIM No. 301, which cautions the jury to carefully review the testimony when | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.