isolated instruction in California

2015(See People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 [the correctness of jury instructions is determined by reviewing the instructions as a whole, not just an isolated instruction or part thereof].) A The At-Issue Instruction The instruction about which defendant complains (italicized below) came after defense counsel told the jury during voir dire that defendant did the “horrible thing[s]” here and he was “responsible for that,” but that the defense was going to “explain to [the 10 jury] what crimes [defendant] is actually guilty of.” These remarks prompted a prospective juror to ask, “How can I fin

2014(People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 (Cross).) Purportedly erroneous instructions are reviewed in the context of the entire charge to determine whether it is reasonably likely the jury misconstrued or misapplied the challenged instruction.

1959(Westover v. City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.2d 635, 637 [ 128 P.2d 350 ] ; Callet v. Alioto, 210 Cal. 65, 70 [ 290 P. 438 ].)” In the instant case the jurors were told that they were not to single out any certain sentence or any individual point or instruction and ignore the others, but that they were to consider all the instructions as a whole and to regard each in the light of all the others.

1959(Westover v. City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.2d 635, 637 [ 128 P.2d 350 ] ; Callet v. Alioto, 210 Cal. 65, 70 [ 290 P. 438 ].)” In the instant case the jurors were told that they were not to single out any certain sentence or any individual point or instruction and ignore the others, but that they were to consider all the instructions as a whole and to regard each in the light of all the others.

1959Co., 203 Cal. 390, 396 [ 264 P. 237 ].) If when considered together the instructions are found generally to state the applicable law, reversible error is not necessarily present even though an isolated instruction is defective in not containing all of the essential elements.

1959Co., 203 Cal. 390, 396 [ 264 P. 237 ].) If when considered together the instructions are found generally to state the applicable law, reversible error is not necessarily present even though an isolated instruction is defective in not containing all of the essential elements.

1959(Westover v. City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.2d 635, 637 [ 128 P.2d 350 ] ; Callet v. Alioto, 210 Cal. 65, 70 [ 290 P. 438 ].)” In the instant case the jurors were told that they were not to single out any certain sentence or any individual point or instruction and ignore the others, but that they were to consider all the instructions as a whole and to regard each in the light of all the others.

1959(Westover v. City of Los Angeles, 20 Cal.2d 635, 637 [ 128 P.2d 350 ] ; Callet v. Alioto, 210 Cal. 65, 70 [ 290 P. 438 ].)” In the instant case the jurors were told that they were not to single out any certain sentence or any individual point or instruction and ignore the others, but that they were to consider all the instructions as a whole and to regard each in the light of all the others.

2023(People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 161 (Carrington).) This is not an isolated inquiry but, rather, an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances.

2011The court then reviewed the structure and purpose of the CAN-SPAM Act as a whole, and “concluded that Congress could not have intended, by way of the carve-out language, to allow states to enact laws that prohibit ‘mere error’ or ‘insignificant inaccuracies.’ ” (Virtumundo, supra, 575 F.3d at p. 1061 [discussing and analyzing Omega, supra, 469 F.3d at pp. 354-355].) Specifically, the court noted that the CAN-SPAM Act provided a private cause of action for “ ‘header information that is materially false or materially misleading,’ suggesting that Congress only intended to “target[] . . . e-mails

2011In Virtumundo, supra, 575 F.3d 1040 , the Ninth Circuit considered whether the CAN-SPAM Act preempted a state law claim alleging that the defendant sent commercial e-mails from domain names that “obscure[d] the identity of the sender.” ( 575 F.3d at p. 1058 .) The defendant, Virtumundo, Inc., had sent the plaintiff commercial e-mails from several different domain names, including “vmmail.com,” “vmadmin.com,” “vtarget.com,” and “vmlocal.com.” (Id. at p. 1064.) The plaintiff conceded that the domain names were “properly registered to Virtumundo,” but argued that they “fail[ed] to clearly identif

2001(See Laura B. v. Superior Court (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 776, 780 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 472 ].) Evidently, the positive test in March 1999 was such an isolated test and was so considered.

2001(See Laura B. v. Superior Court (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 776, 780 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 472 ].) Evidently, the positive test in March 1999 was such an isolated test and was so considered.

1991There appears no reasonable probability that a more favorable verdict would have been returned had the question not been asked. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) (30) Defendant finally complains of "improper insinuations regarding threats." He did not object to most of the questions, thus waiving the matter.

1991There appears no reasonable probability that a more favorable verdict would have been returned had the question not been asked. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) (30) Defendant finally complains of "improper insinuations regarding threats." He did not object to most of the questions, thus waiving the matter.

1961As was said in Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co., 33 Cal.2d 514, 519 [6] [ 203 P.2d 522 ] : “In determining the propriety of an instruction the reviewing court should examine the charge as a whole. [Citations.] If when considered together the instructions are found generally to state the applicable law, reversible error is not necessarily present even though an isolated instruction is defective in not containing all of the essential elements.” See also Scarano v. Schnoor, 158 Cal.App.2d 612, 617-619 [3-4] [ 323 P.2d 178 , 68 A.L.R.2d 416 ]; Ballard v. Augustine, 171 Cal.App.2d 206, 212 [6] [ 339 P.2

1961As was said in Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co., 33 Cal.2d 514, 519 [6] [ 203 P.2d 522 ] : “In determining the propriety of an instruction the reviewing court should examine the charge as a whole. [Citations.] If when considered together the instructions are found generally to state the applicable law, reversible error is not necessarily present even though an isolated instruction is defective in not containing all of the essential elements.” See also Scarano v. Schnoor, 158 Cal.App.2d 612, 617-619 [3-4] [ 323 P.2d 178 , 68 A.L.R.2d 416 ]; Ballard v. Augustine, 171 Cal.App.2d 206, 212 [6] [ 339 P.2

1961As was said in Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co., 33 Cal.2d 514, 519 [6] [ 203 P.2d 522 ] : “In determining the propriety of an instruction the reviewing court should examine the charge as a whole. [Citations.] If when considered together the instructions are found generally to state the applicable law, reversible error is not necessarily present even though an isolated instruction is defective in not containing all of the essential elements.” See also Scarano v. Schnoor, 158 Cal.App.2d 612, 617-619 [3-4] [ 323 P.2d 178 , 68 A.L.R.2d 416 ]; Ballard v. Augustine, 171 Cal.App.2d 206, 212 [6] [ 339 P.2

1961As was said in Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co., 33 Cal.2d 514, 519 [6] [ 203 P.2d 522 ] : “In determining the propriety of an instruction the reviewing court should examine the charge as a whole. [Citations.] If when considered together the instructions are found generally to state the applicable law, reversible error is not necessarily present even though an isolated instruction is defective in not containing all of the essential elements.” See also Scarano v. Schnoor, 158 Cal.App.2d 612, 617-619 [3-4] [ 323 P.2d 178 , 68 A.L.R.2d 416 ]; Ballard v. Augustine, 171 Cal.App.2d 206, 212 [6] [ 339 P.2

1961As was said in Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co., 33 Cal.2d 514, 519 [6] [ 203 P.2d 522 ] : “In determining the propriety of an instruction the reviewing court should examine the charge as a whole. [Citations.] If when considered together the instructions are found generally to state the applicable law, reversible error is not necessarily present even though an isolated instruction is defective in not containing all of the essential elements.” See also Scarano v. Schnoor, 158 Cal.App.2d 612, 617-619 [3-4] [ 323 P.2d 178 , 68 A.L.R.2d 416 ]; Ballard v. Augustine, 171 Cal.App.2d 206, 212 [6] [ 339 P.2

1961As was said in Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co., 33 Cal.2d 514, 519 [6] [ 203 P.2d 522 ] : “In determining the propriety of an instruction the reviewing court should examine the charge as a whole. [Citations.] If when considered together the instructions are found generally to state the applicable law, reversible error is not necessarily present even though an isolated instruction is defective in not containing all of the essential elements.” See also Scarano v. Schnoor, 158 Cal.App.2d 612, 617-619 [3-4] [ 323 P.2d 178 , 68 A.L.R.2d 416 ]; Ballard v. Augustine, 171 Cal.App.2d 206, 212 [6] [ 339 P.2

1955Code, § 1638; Hensler v. City of Los Angeles, 124 Cal.App.2d 71, 77 [ 268 P.2d 12 ]); (3) technical rules of construction will not be employed if the intention of the parties can be plainly discovered from the four corners of the instrument (Paddock v. Vasques, 122 Cal.App.2d 396, 400 [ 265 P.2d 121]); (4) “the intention of the parties is to be gained from a consideration of the entire instrument though the immediate objective of the inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause, . taking into consideration every provision, *775 clause and word, whether of grant, or description, or of qualifica

1955Code, § 1638; Hensler v. City of Los Angeles, 124 Cal.App.2d 71, 77 [ 268 P.2d 12 ]); (3) technical rules of construction will not be employed if the intention of the parties can be plainly discovered from the four corners of the instrument (Paddock v. Vasques, 122 Cal.App.2d 396, 400 [ 265 P.2d 121]); (4) “the intention of the parties is to be gained from a consideration of the entire instrument though the immediate objective of the inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause, . taking into consideration every provision, *775 clause and word, whether of grant, or description, or of qualifica

1955Code, § 1638; Hensler v. City of Los Angeles, 124 Cal.App.2d 71, 77 [ 268 P.2d 12 ]); (3) technical rules of construction will not be employed if the intention of the parties can be plainly discovered from the four corners of the instrument (Paddock v. Vasques, 122 Cal.App.2d 396, 400 [ 265 P.2d 121]); (4) “the intention of the parties is to be gained from a consideration of the entire instrument though the immediate objective of the inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause, . taking into consideration every provision, *775 clause and word, whether of grant, or description, or of qualifica

1955Code, § 1638; Hensler v. City of Los Angeles, 124 Cal.App.2d 71, 77 [ 268 P.2d 12 ]); (3) technical rules of construction will not be employed if the intention of the parties can be plainly discovered from the four corners of the instrument (Paddock v. Vasques, 122 Cal.App.2d 396, 400 [ 265 P.2d 121]); (4) “the intention of the parties is to be gained from a consideration of the entire instrument though the immediate objective of the inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause, . taking into consideration every provision, *775 clause and word, whether of grant, or description, or of qualifica

1955Code, § 1638; Hensler v. City of Los Angeles, 124 Cal.App.2d 71, 77 [ 268 P.2d 12 ]); (3) technical rules of construction will not be employed if the intention of the parties can be plainly discovered from the four corners of the instrument (Paddock v. Vasques, 122 Cal.App.2d 396, 400 [ 265 P.2d 121]); (4) “the intention of the parties is to be gained from a consideration of the entire instrument though the immediate objective of the inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause, . taking into consideration every provision, *775 clause and word, whether of grant, or description, or of qualifica

1955Code, § 1638; Hensler v. City of Los Angeles, 124 Cal.App.2d 71, 77 [ 268 P.2d 12 ]); (3) technical rules of construction will not be employed if the intention of the parties can be plainly discovered from the four corners of the instrument (Paddock v. Vasques, 122 Cal.App.2d 396, 400 [ 265 P.2d 121]); (4) “the intention of the parties is to be gained from a consideration of the entire instrument though the immediate objective of the inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause, . taking into consideration every provision, *775 clause and word, whether of grant, or description, or of qualifica

1927(Coon v. Sonoma Magnesite Co., 182 Cal. 597, 600 [ 189 Pac. 271 ]; 9 Cal. Jur. 255.) The facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction may be looked to for a solution of the question, and, when a deed is but one of the circumstances surrounding an implied dedication, all the other circumstances may be considered together with the deed, and the implication, if any, is an *305 implication of fact.

1927(Coon v. Sonoma Magnesite Co., 182 Cal. 597, 600 [ 189 Pac. 271 ]; 9 Cal. Jur. 255.) The facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction may be looked to for a solution of the question, and, when a deed is but one of the circumstances surrounding an implied dedication, all the other circumstances may be considered together with the deed, and the implication, if any, is an *305 implication of fact.