purportedly erroneous instruction in California

2026(See Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570 , 570–581.) Under the Chapman standard, a federal constitutional error requires reversal unless the People show the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) In the case of In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 (Lopez), the California Supreme Court further clarified the standard for evaluating harmless error arising from an instruction based on an invalid theory or with omitted required elements.

2025(See Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570 , 570–581.) Under the Chapman standard, a federal constitutional error requires 8 reversal unless the People show the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) C.

2026(See Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570 , 570–581.) Under the Chapman standard, a federal constitutional error requires reversal unless the People show the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 .) In the case of In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 (Lopez), the California Supreme Court further clarified the standard for evaluating harmless error arising from an instruction based on an invalid theory or with omitted required elements.

2025(See Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570 , 570–581.) Under the Chapman standard, a federal constitutional error requires 8 reversal unless the People show the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) C.

2026(People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625 , 660, citing People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824 .) “We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review.” (Ramos, supra, 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 1088 .) When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider “ ‘ “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (Richardson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1028 .) We consider the instructions as a whole and “ ‘assume that jurors are in

2021Had the trial court given that instruction, as defendant argues it should have, rather than CALJIC 17.16, “it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a Therefore, the instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”].) Apart from that one instance, the Stutelberg opinion otherwise unambiguously applies the stricter “no reasonable doubt” standard, and we conclude that is the standard the court intended to apply. 10 rational jury would have rendered the same verdict.” (Merritt, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 831 .) Defendant argues the prejudice from the trial court’s purportedly erroneous i

2024(See People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 604 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 .) “We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review.” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider “ ‘ “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028 (Richardson).) We consider the instructions as a whole and “

2023(See People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 604 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 .) “We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review.” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider “ ‘ “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028 .) We consider the instructions as a whole and “ ‘assume tha

2024(See People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 604 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 .) “We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review.” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider “ ‘ “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028 (Richardson).) We consider the instructions as a whole and “

2023(See People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 604 ; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 .) “We determine whether a jury instruction correctly states the law under the independent or de novo standard of review.” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) When we review a purportedly erroneous instruction, we consider “ ‘ “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028 .) We consider the instructions as a whole and “ ‘assume tha

2026No Error in Instructing with CALCRIM No. 1193 In making his argument, Garcia notes that while California courts have upheld instructions that included the same sentence from CALCRIM 1193 that he now challenges (see People v. Gonzales (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 494 , 503–504 (Gonzales); Lapenias, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 175–176; Munch, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 473–474), such precedent was incorrectly decided because the instruction impermissibly bolsters credibility and allows a reasonable juror to conclude from the expert’s testimony that the alleged victim was sexually abused.

2025(People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028 .) We review defendant’s argument despite his failure to object at trial because “ ‘[w]hether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim.’ ” (People v. Ngo (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 126, 149 ; § 1259 [“The appellate court may also review any instruction given, refused or modified, even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.”].) The jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 8

2025We need not examine whether the trial court erred in giving CACI No. 213 on adoptive admissions.3 Even if we assume instructional error, our examination of the record leads us to conclude that any such error was not prejudicial, because Consequent has not demonstrated that absent the purportedly erroneous instruction, it was reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a more favorable verdict. 3 “ ‘The propriety of jury instructions is a question of law that we review de novo. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1187 ; accord, Martinez v. R

2023No Error in the Challenged Instruction In making his argument, Bass primarily relies on People v. Jones (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 316 (Jones).

2020(People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1028 .) 12Defense counsel did not object to the instruction at trial but, as the People concede, we may review the merits of the claim to determine whether defendant’s substantial rights were affected. (§ 1259; People v. Felix (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 849, 857 .) 43 We consider the instruction as a whole and assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions which are given.

2014(People v. Thornton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 436 ; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 97 .) It is not reasonably likely that the court’s rendition of CALCRIM No. 1403 confused the jury or caused it to misapply the instruction.

2014(People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 750 ; §§ 1259, 1469.) "Substantial rights are affected if the error 'result[s] in a miscarriage of justice, [i.e.,] making it reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of error.' " (People v. Elsey (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 948, 953, fn. 2 .) 7 witness certainty should not have been given because an expert witness testified without contradiction that "a witness's confidence in an identification does not positively correlate with its accuracy." Johnson held that the instruction was proper despite the expert w

2014Next, in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1231-1232 , our Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that the portion of CALJIC No. 2.92 referring to 4 When a defendant fails to object to an instruction in the trial court, an appellate challenge to the instruction is cognizable only if defendant's substantial rights are implicated by the purportedly erroneous instruction.

2014(People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292 , 1320- 1321.) Instructional error that does not impair a federal constitutional right requires reversal only if it is reasonably probable that a properly instructed jury would have returned a verdict more favorable to the appellant.

2014(People v. Thornton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 436 ; People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 97 .) It is not reasonably likely that the court’s rendition of CALCRIM No. 1403 confused the jury or caused it to misapply the instruction.