read instruction in California

2025(People v. Offley, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 598.) The Attorney General cites People v. Estrada (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 941 (Estrada), which concluded that the defendant was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief, even though the trial court read an instruction that mentioned the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

2025(Air Couriers Internat. v. Employment Development Dept. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 923, 932 .) 3 We disagree, however, with Read’s assertion that the decisive facts are undisputed invoking independent review. 7 3.

2025Standards of Review As Read acknowledges, the JVA’s validity is a question of fact.3 (Pellegrini v. Weiss, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 525 .) Accordingly, our “power begins and ends with a determination of whether there is any substantial evidence—contradicted or uncontradicted—to support the trial court findings. [Citation.] We must therefore view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in its favor.” (Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570 , 582.) Separately, Read’s claim t

2024Contreras’s petition for resentencing On August 11, 2020, Contreras—representing himself— filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. 4 The written jury instruction in the record includes the bracketed words “The” and “A” before the word “defendant.” When the court read the instruction to the jury, it used the word “the” rather than “a.” 5 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 . 7 Contreras checked boxes on the form stating (1) the information filed in his case “allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable conseque

2021(See Aledamat, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 8 .) However, the jury was not provided with this distinction, therefore, the error was legal. 6 The trial court read this instruction to the jury as an enhancement to count 1, the robbery charge, provided a written copy to the jury and the prosecutor argued this instruction to the jury in closing argument. 8 how you use it, it could become a deadly weapon especially if you’re trying to hit somebody with it.

2021First, we assume—based upon the substance of Read’s motion filed simply not the rare case in which the denial of a new trial motion based on insufficiency of the evidence was an abuse of discretion because “there is no . . . conflict in the evidence and the evidence compels the conclusion that the motion should have been granted.” (Fassberg Construction, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 752 .) 24 Because of overlaps in the two reports, there were actually 26 teeth that were reported as fractured. 25 Read also argues that Dr. Chuapoco at one time had a website that included information that contrad

2021First, we assume—based upon the substance of Read’s motion filed simply not the rare case in which the denial of a new trial motion based on insufficiency of the evidence was an abuse of discretion because “there is no . . . conflict in the evidence and the evidence compels the conclusion that the motion should have been granted.” (Fassberg Construction, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 752 .) 24 Because of overlaps in the two reports, there were actually 26 teeth that were reported as fractured. 25 Read also argues that Dr. Chuapoco at one time had a website that included information that contrad

2021Motions for New Trial Generally “The authority of a trial court in this state to grant a new trial is established and circumscribed by statute. [Citation.]” (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2007) 41 Cal.4th 624, 633 .) Under section 657, there are seven grounds (identified in seven subdivisions) upon which a new trial may be granted, the two grounds relevant here being the following: (1) “[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial”; [¶] . . . [¶

2021(Benach, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 852 .) We acknowledge that Read did make a greater showing in support of his insufficiency of the evidence claim in his motion for new trial filed below.

2015The court responded, “The answer to question number 2 will be yes.” In responding to the jury’s first question, the court cited the holding in People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613 (Lee) as standing for the proposition that first degree attempted murder must be “willful, deliberate and premeditated, but not that the attempted murderer personally have acted [with] willfulness, deliberation and premeditation even if he is guilty as an aider and abettor.” Defense counsel pointed out that the Lee case dealt “specifically with attempted murder” and was “distinguishable from our case.

2014(Cf. Aranda, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 371 .) Furthermore, seven days elapsed between the court’s explanation of the reasonable doubt requirement to the crowd of prospective jurors and the court’s predeliberation instructions to the twelve jurors who would decide the case.

2013Prior to Morales’s testimony, the court read the instruction requested by counsel, entitled “Evidence of Uncharged Domestic Violence.”6 definition. [Citation.] In Dallas, abuse of a baby was admissible pursuant to section 1109 because it was domestic violence within the meaning of Family Code section 6211, although it was not domestic violence within the meaning of Penal Code section 13700, which did not include the baby in its narrower class of protected victims.” (People v. Ogle (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144 , citing Dallas, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 952 .) 6 Prior to Morales’s testim

2013Prior to Morales’s testimony, the court read the instruction requested by counsel, entitled “Evidence of Uncharged Domestic Violence.”6 definition. [Citation.] In Dallas, abuse of a baby was admissible pursuant to section 1109 because it was domestic violence within the meaning of Family Code section 6211, although it was not domestic violence within the meaning of Penal Code section 13700, which did not include the baby in its narrower class of protected victims.” (People v. Ogle (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144 , citing Dallas, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 952 .) 6 Prior to Morales’s testim

2013Prior to Morales’s testimony, the court read the instruction requested by counsel, entitled “Evidence of Uncharged Domestic Violence.”6 definition. [Citation.] In Dallas, abuse of a baby was admissible pursuant to section 1109 because it was domestic violence within the meaning of Family Code section 6211, although it was not domestic violence within the meaning of Penal Code section 13700, which did not include the baby in its narrower class of protected victims.” (People v. Ogle (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1138, 1144 , citing Dallas, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 952 .) 6 Prior to Morales’s testim

2001The proposed instruction would not have provided the jury with any information it had not otherwise learned from CALJIC No. 8.84.1, and the trial court properly refused to read special instruction No. 5. ( Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 1103-1104, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867 , 864 P.2d 40 .) e) Defense special instruction No. 6 The trial court granted defendant's request to read the following instruction: "In deciding whether death or life in prison without the possibility of parole is the appropriate sentence, you may not consider for any reason whatsoever the deterrent or non-deterrent effect of t

2001The proposed instruction would not have provided the jury with any information it had not otherwise learned from CALJIC No. 8.84.1, and the trial court properly refused to read special instruction No. 5. ( Berryman, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 1103-1104, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 867 , 864 P.2d 40 .) e) Defense special instruction No. 6 The trial court granted defendant's request to read the following instruction: "In deciding whether death or life in prison without the possibility of parole is the appropriate sentence, you may not consider for any reason whatsoever the deterrent or non-deterrent effect of t

1989Appellant cites this as reversible error, relying on People v. Peters (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 75 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 76 ].

1989Appellant cites this as reversible error, relying on People v. Peters (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 75 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 76 ].

1988As we explain, the trial court was not required to read this instruction because there was absolutely no evidence Steele was threatened in order to coerce him to escape. *706 At Steele’s request the trial court read an instruction based on the necessity defense developed in People v. Lovercamp (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 823 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 69 A.L.RJd 668].

1988As we explain, the trial court was not required to read this instruction because there was absolutely no evidence Steele was threatened in order to coerce him to escape. *706 At Steele’s request the trial court read an instruction based on the necessity defense developed in People v. Lovercamp (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 823 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 69 A.L.RJd 668].

1974The court read the instruction as given in People v. Ortega, 2 Cal.App.3d 884, 896 , footnote 3 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 260 ]. “ ‘In a large proportion of cases, and perhaps strictly speaking, in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected.

1974The court read the instruction as given in People v. Ortega, 2 Cal.App.3d 884, 896 , footnote 3 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 260 ]. “ ‘In a large proportion of cases, and perhaps strictly speaking, in all cases, absolute certainty cannot be attained or expected.

1963In People v. Hewitt, 198 Cal.App.2d 247 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 5 ], at page 252, this instruction is discussed and even where given, it was held not to be reversible error, and we see that in the present case the court read the instruction but advised the jury to disregard it.

1963In People v. Hewitt, 198 Cal.App.2d 247 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 5 ], at page 252, this instruction is discussed and even where given, it was held not to be reversible error, and we see that in the present case the court read the instruction but advised the jury to disregard it.

1959Quoting from Jansen v. Southern Pacific Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 833 [ 247 P.2d 581 ], the court said (p. 845): “It is well established that ‘A party cannot complain of an instruction given at his own request or of an error in an instruction given at the instance of his adversary when he requests a substantially similar one.’ ” We agree with respondents that the doctrine of invited error is here applicable.

1959Quoting from Jansen v. Southern Pacific Co., 112 Cal.App.2d 833 [ 247 P.2d 581 ], the court said (p. 845): “It is well established that ‘A party cannot complain of an instruction given at his own request or of an error in an instruction given at the instance of his adversary when he requests a substantially similar one.’ ” We agree with respondents that the doctrine of invited error is here applicable.

1958The facts in Estate of Fosselman, 48 Cal.2d 179 [ 308 P.2d 336 ], are completely dissimilar and make that case inapplicable. [28] Appellants' next point involves the refusal of the court to read their instruction Number 10, particularly as it pertained to the value of the decedent's estate.

1958The facts in Estate of Fosselman, 48 Cal.2d 179 [ 308 P.2d 336 ], are completely dissimilar and make that case inapplicable. [28] Appellants' next point involves the refusal of the court to read their instruction Number 10, particularly as it pertained to the value of the decedent's estate.