facts underlying instruction in California

2022The People argued there was insufficient evidence to support the instruction, and the trial court agreed that the instruction “would be inappropriate under the facts or evidence in this case.” Section 837 provides that a private person may arrest another “[f]or a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.” Further, “[t]he person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his arrest and detention.” (§ 835; Fosselman, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 579 .) “A defendant is entitled to have the court instruct on a defense theory if it is supported by substantial evidence,

2021(People v. Lemus (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 470, 476 (Lemus).) For these purposes, “[s]ubstantial evidence” is “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [people] could have concluded that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 477, internal quotations omitted.) “If the evidence should prove minimal and insubstantial, however, the court need not instruct on its effect.” (People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684 .) Similarly, a court must instruct on a lesser included offense where the accused presents “substantial evidence,” i.e. “evidence suf

2021(People v. Lemus (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 470, 476 (Lemus).) For these purposes, “[s]ubstantial evidence” is “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [people] could have concluded that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 477, internal quotations omitted.) “If the evidence should prove minimal and insubstantial, however, the court need not instruct on its effect.” (People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684 .) Similarly, a court must instruct on a lesser included offense where the accused presents “substantial evidence,” i.e. “evidence suf

2016(People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 288 ; People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury,’ that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. [Citation.]” (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201, fn. 8 .) Similarly, a trial court need not give a requested instruction unless the defendant “proffers evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could have concluded” ’ that the particular facts underlying the in

2023In 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 9 jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.’” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 (Salas).) In other words, substantial evidence in this context means “‘evidence which is “sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [people] could have concluded”’ that the particular facts underlying the instruction

2021“A trial court must instruct on a lesser included offense if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense, but not the charged offense.” (People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1335 (Racy), citing Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “‘“Substantial evidence” in this specific context is defined as evidence which is “sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable men [and women] could have concluded’” that the particular facts underlying the instruction

2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 475 .) The burden of proof as to the facts underlying a CUA defense is allocated to the defendant, but the “defendant is required merely to raise a reasonable doubt” as to those facts. ( Mower, supra, at pp. 477, 481 .) The defendant is not required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts underlying the defense.

2015(Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 475 .) The burden of proof as to the facts underlying a CUA defense is allocated to the defendant, but the “defendant is required merely to raise a reasonable doubt” as to those facts. ( Mower, supra, at pp. 477, 481 .) The defendant is not required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts underlying the defense.

2017Substantial evidence supporting sua sponte instruction on a particular defense is evidence that is "sufficient to 'deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., "evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could have concluded" ' " that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist. ( People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307 , 325, 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684-685, fn. 12, 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 .) Defendant did not testify at trial, so there is no direct evidence that he honestly and reasonably believed he had k

2017Substantial evidence supporting sua sponte instruction on a particular defense is evidence that is "sufficient to 'deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., "evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could have concluded" ' " that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist. ( People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307 , 325, 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ; People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684-685, fn. 12, 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 .) Defendant did not testify at trial, so there is no direct evidence that he honestly and reasonably believed he had k

2024(People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 102 ; People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 .) Evidence is sufficient to deserve consideration if a reasonable jury could find it persuasive and therefore conclude that the particular facts underlying the instruction exist.

2023In 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 9 jury, was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.’” (People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982 (Salas).) In other words, substantial evidence in this context means “‘evidence which is “sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [people] could have concluded”’ that the particular facts underlying the instruction

2021A trial court has a “duty to instruct on a lesser-included offense . . . if there is substantial evidence the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense, but not the charged offense.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 177 .) “In this context substantial evidence means evidence which is sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury and from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude the particular facts underlying the instruction existed.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) “In deciding whether evidence is ‘substantial’ in this context, a court determ

2013In this context, “substantial evidence means evidence which is sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury and from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude the particular facts underlying the instruction existed.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) 15 It does not mean “ ‘[t]he existence of “any evidence, no matter how weak . . . .” ’ ” (People v. Moye (2009) 47 Cal.4th 537, 553 (Moye), original italics, quoting from People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 685, fn. 12 .) The evidence on which defendant relies falls far short of this standard.

1985The Supreme Court held: "The court must give a requested instruction only if defendant proffers evidence sufficient to `deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., "evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable men could have concluded"' that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist. ( People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684 ..., quoting from People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294 ....) There was no direct evidence indicating unconsciousness of the defendant at the time and place of the charged offense.

1983Code, §§ 1118.1, 1118.2 6 People v. Ricketts (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 441, 446 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 647 ].) Similarly, a criminal defendant is precluded from presenting to a jury defense such as unconsciousness (P eople v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115, 132 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 654 P.2d 1243 ]), diminished capacity (People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ]), entrapment (People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 691 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 459 , 591 P.2d 947 ]), where there is insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the particular facts underlying t

2022(People v. Romo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 517 [“It is equally well settled a trial court must give a requested instruction when there is sufficient evidence to support it, that is, when there is evidence from which reasonable jurors could conclude the facts underlying the instruction exist”].) Fourth, the court instructed the jury with “Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff.” The instruction directed the jury to decide the amount of money that would “reasonably and fairly” compensate Quintero for all damages caused by Weinkauf, “even if Ms. Quintero was more susceptible to injury than a normally he

2022(People v. Romo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 517 [“It is equally well settled a trial court must give a requested instruction when there is sufficient evidence to support it, that is, when there is evidence from which reasonable jurors could conclude the facts underlying the instruction exist”].) Fourth, the court instructed the jury with “Unusually Susceptible Plaintiff.” The instruction directed the jury to decide the amount of money that would “reasonably and fairly” compensate Quintero for all damages caused by Weinkauf, “even if Ms. Quintero was more susceptible to injury than a normally he

2014Respondent abandoned that contention following our Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Arriaga (2014) 58 Cal.4th 950, 958-960 , holding that such certificate is not required to appeal the denial of a motion to vacate under section 1016.5. 7 meritorious claims.” (In re Clark, supra, at p. 780 .) “If, therefore, counsel failed to afford adequate representation in a prior habeas corpus application, that failure may be offered in explanation and justification of the need to file another petition” as long as the petitioner “allege[s] with specificity the facts underlying the claim that the inadeq

2012The basic standard of performance is whether the conduct of counsel— including counsel in capital cases—―fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,‖ ― under prevailing professional norms.‖ (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688 ; see In re Hardy, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1018 .) Thus, ―[t]he petitioner must . . . allege with specificity the facts underlying the claim that the inadequate presentation of an issue or omission of any issue reflects incompetence of counsel, i.e., that the issue is one which would have entitled the petitioner to relief had it been raised and adeq

2024As for the remaining 11 claims, we found Maury had failed to make a substantial showing that they were not successive or that the requirements set forth in subdivision (d) of section 1509 had been satisfied; namely, Maury failed to show (by a preponderance of all available evidence whether or not admissible at trial) that he is actually innocent of any of the crimes in which he was convicted or is ineligible for the death penalty. 5 A petitioner seeking to avoid the successiveness bar on grounds of ineffective assistance of prior counsel must “ ‘allege with specificity the facts underlying the

2024Moreover, mere omission of a claim “developed” by new counsel does not raise a presumption that prior habeas corpus counsel was incompetent, or warrant consideration of the merits of a successive petition.’ ” (Friend I, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 731, fn. 5 .) Expounding on Friend I’s discussion of this pleading standard, the Friend II court held that Strickland must be applied in the capital habeas context “ ‘with scrupulous care, lest “intrusive post-trial inquiry” threaten the integrity of the very adversary process the right to counsel is meant to serve.’ ” (Friend II, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th a

2021(See, e.g., People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98 , 133–134 (Simon) [conducting comprehensive review of witness accounts of murder to conclude defendant was not entitled to self-defense instruction]; People v. Williams, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1264 [defendant’s contention that murder lacked premeditation contrary to evidence that he orchestrated it]; People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 588 [defendant’s statement that first shot was accidental did not support manslaughter instruction where victim was shot five times].) To show entitlement to a self-defense instruction, a defendant must sho

2013(People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581, 584 ; People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 664 .) Substantial evidence is “ ‘ “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . . conclude[]” ’ ” that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist.

2022(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 ; People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1052 .) “A party is entitled to a requested instruction if it is supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Ross, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1049 .) Evidence is substantial in this context if it reasonably permits the jury to find that the facts underlying the instruction existed.

2022(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 ; People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1052 .) “A party is entitled to a requested instruction if it is supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Ross, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1049 .) Evidence is substantial in this context if it reasonably permits the jury to find that the facts underlying the instruction existed.

2020The judge who sentenced defendant was the same judge who presided over the trial and was thus intimately acquainted with the facts underlying his violation of probation, which 2 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . 4 involved use of a weapon.

2016Nevertheless, he contends that the trial court’s error was prejudicial, asserting that “there was potentially much to learn from a supplemental probation report.” Defendant’s speculative assertions do not convince us that “it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.” (People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836 .) First, the judge who presided over the revocation hearing and who sentenced defendant “was [ ] intimately acquainted with the facts underlying his violation of probation,” so a supplemental report

2025(People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find the existence of the facts underlying the instruction, and to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the theory of guilt set forth in the instruction.” (People v. Jantz (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1290 .) “ ‘Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.’ ” (People v. Grant (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 323 , 330.) In reviewing for substantial evidence, we “view the record favorably to the judgm

2014There was no testimony that he grabbed the wrong cell phone or why he would have thrown his own phone underneath the car. . . . [T]hat was not substantial evidence for a mistake of fact as to that cell phone.” 3 The substantial evidence which is necessary to support a jury instruction is “ ‘evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [people] could have concluded that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Strozier (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 55, 63 ; see also People v. Marshall (1997)

2016(People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 288 ; People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury,’ that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. [Citation.]” (People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201, fn. 8 .) Similarly, a trial court need not give a requested instruction unless the defendant “proffers evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could have concluded” ’ that the particular facts underlying the in

1983Code, §§ 1118.1, 1118.2 6 People v. Ricketts (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 441, 446 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 647 ].) Similarly, a criminal defendant is precluded from presenting to a jury defense such as unconsciousness (P eople v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115, 132 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 716 , 654 P.2d 1243 ]), diminished capacity (People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ]), entrapment (People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 691 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 459 , 591 P.2d 947 ]), where there is insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the particular facts underlying t

2016(Dowl, supra, 57 Cal.4th at p. 1086 ; People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 464, 481 .) He or she need not establish the severity of his or her illness; as this court has held, “the voters of California did not intend to limit the compassionate use defense to those patients deemed by a jury to be ‘seriously ill.’ ” (People v. Spark (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 259, 268 .) 12.

2015(Id. at p. 464.) The Medical Marijuana Program (§ 11362.7 et seq.; MMP), enacted in 2003, further provides that a “qualified patient or a person with an identification card who … processes marijuana for his or her own personal medical use” “shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357 [possession of marijuana], 11358 [cultivation of marijuana], 11359 [possession for sale], 11360 [transportation], 11366 [maintaining a place for the sale, giving away, or use of marijuana], 11366.5 [making available premises for the manufacture, storage or distribution of co

2022(People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967, 982-983 ; People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 [substantial evidence is evidence that is sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury and from which it could conclude the particular facts underlying the instruction existed].) However, a trial court “need not give instructions based solely on conjecture and speculation.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1200 ; see 12 Oropeza, at p. 78 [a trial court need not “present theories the jury could not reasonably find to exist”].) We independently determine whether the trial court erred in f

2022(See People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1245 [“Obviously a flight instruction is correctly given 20 ‘where there is substantial evidence of flight by the defendant . . . from which the jury could reasonably infer a consciousness of guilt’ ”].) In this context, “substantial evidence means evidence which is sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury and from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude the particular facts underlying the instruction existed.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s flight ins

2020(Ibid.) Rather, in determining if the evidence is sufficient to give a requested instruction, the trial court determines if there is “ ‘evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., evidence from 18 which a jury composed of reasonable men could have concluded that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist.’ ” (People v. Strozier (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 55, 63 .) Likewise, on appeal, we consider only whether substantial evidence, i.e., evidence if believed by a rational jury, supported the requested instruction.

2014There was no testimony that he grabbed the wrong cell phone or why he would have thrown his own phone underneath the car. . . . [T]hat was not substantial evidence for a mistake of fact as to that cell phone.” 3 The substantial evidence which is necessary to support a jury instruction is “ ‘evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [people] could have concluded that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Strozier (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 55, 63 ; see also People v. Marshall (1997)

2026Relevant Legal Principles “The trial court must instruct sua sponte as to defenses ‘ “ ‘that the defendant is relying on . . . , or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1224 ; see People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 .) “Substantial evidence supporting sua sponte instruction on a particular defense is evidence that is ‘sufficient to “deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., ‘evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could ha

2023(People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1224 .) “Substantial evidence supporting sua sponte instruction on a particular defense is evidence that is ‘sufficient to “deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., ‘evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could have concluded’ ” ’ that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist.” (People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 75 .) 20 The trial court committed no instructional error with respect to count 7 (brandishing an imitation firearm) or count 8 (harming a police dog), because it gave a standalone self-defense instructi

2021“A trial court must instruct on a lesser included offense if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense, but not the charged offense.” (People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1335 (Racy), citing Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “‘“Substantial evidence” in this specific context is defined as evidence which is “sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable men [and women] could have concluded’” that the particular facts underlying the instruction

2021“A trial court must instruct on a lesser included offense if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense, but not the charged offense.” (People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1335 (Racy), citing Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) “‘“Substantial evidence” in this specific context is defined as evidence which is “sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable men [and women] could have concluded’” that the particular facts underlying the instruction

2026Relevant Legal Principles “The trial court must instruct sua sponte as to defenses ‘ “ ‘that the defendant is relying on . . . , or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1224 ; see People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 .) “Substantial evidence supporting sua sponte instruction on a particular defense is evidence that is ‘sufficient to “deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., ‘evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could ha

2023(People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1224 .) “Substantial evidence supporting sua sponte instruction on a particular defense is evidence that is ‘sufficient to “deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., ‘evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could have concluded’ ” ’ that the particular facts underlying the instruction did exist.” (People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 75 .) 20 The trial court committed no instructional error with respect to count 7 (brandishing an imitation firearm) or count 8 (harming a police dog), because it gave a standalone self-defense instructi

2024(People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201, fn. 8 ; People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) Thus, in reviewing for substantial evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the instruction.

2013(People v. Petznick (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 663, 676-677 ; People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) Substantial evidence is evidence from which a jury reasonably could conclude that the particular facts underlying the instruction exist.

2022As directly relevant here, the Supreme Court reiterated in Friend that a petitioner seeking to avoid the successiveness bar on grounds of ineffective assistance of prior counsel must “ ‘allege with specificity the facts underlying the claim that the inadequate presentation of an issue or omission of any issue reflects incompetence of counsel.’ ” (Friend, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 731, fn. 5 .) Conclusory allegations are inadequate to satisfy a petitioner’s pleading burden (Reno, at p. 500; Duvall, at p. 474), and 11 “normally the justification for raising a claim must be stated in the petition i

2022As directly relevant here, the Supreme Court reiterated in Friend that a petitioner seeking to avoid the successiveness bar on grounds of ineffective assistance of prior counsel must “ ‘allege with specificity the facts underlying the claim that the inadequate presentation of an issue or omission of any issue reflects incompetence of counsel.’ ” (Friend, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 731, fn. 5 .) Conclusory allegations are inadequate to satisfy a petitioner’s pleading burden (Reno, at p. 500; Duvall, at p. 474), and 11 “normally the justification for raising a claim must be stated in the petition i

2022(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 ; People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1052 .) “A party is entitled to a requested instruction if it is supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Ross, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1049 .) Evidence is substantial in this context if it reasonably permits the jury to find that the facts underlying the instruction existed.

2022(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 ; People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1052 .) “A party is entitled to a requested instruction if it is supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Ross, supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at p. 1049 .) Evidence is substantial in this context if it reasonably permits the jury to find that the facts underlying the instruction existed.

2021On review, we determine independently whether substantial evidence to support a defense existed.” (People v. Shelmire (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1054-1055 .) “Evidence is substantial if a 6 reasonable jury could find the existence of the particular facts underlying the instruction.” (People v. Lee (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1426 .) “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 .) Substantial evidence does not support a jury inst

2014If there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted as if (he/she) were conscious, you should conclude that (he/she) was conscious, unless based on all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that (he/she) was conscious, in which case you must find (him/her) not guilty.” 9. evidence substantial enough to merit consideration.” (People v. Barajas (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 787, 791 ; see §§ 1093, subd. (f), & 1127.) “Evidence is substantial if a reasonable jury could find the existence of the particular facts underlying the instruction.” (People v. Lee (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1413,

2016A. Applicable legal principles “‘It is an established principle of the law of theft that a bona fide belief of a right or claim to the property taken, even if mistaken, negates the element of felonious intent.’ [Citations.] It is equally well settled a trial court must give a requested instruction when there is sufficient evidence to support it, that is, when there is evidence from which reasonable jurors could conclude the facts underlying the instruction exist.” (People v. Romo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 517 ; see People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 484 .) However, “‘[a] party is not enti

2015“Perfect self-defense requires that a defendant have an honest and reasonable belief in the need to defend himself or herself.” (People v. Rodarte (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1168 .) A trial court is required to give a requested instruction concerning a defense, such as perfect self-defense, “ ‘only if there is substantial evidence to support the defense.’ ” (In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 783 .) “ ‘Substantial evidence’ in this specific context is defined as evidence which is ‘sufficient to “deserve consideration by the jury, i.e., ‘evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable