misleading instruction in California

1987VI, § 4 1/2 [now § 13].) If it is probable that in the absence of a misleading instruction the jury would not have returned the verdict complained of, then there has been a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the constitutional provision. [Citations omitted.]’ (People v. Rogers (1943) 22 Cal.2d 787 , 807 .. . .)” (Id. at p. 551, fn. omitted.) These cases teach that CALJIC No. 8.32 error is reversible only upon a showing where the jury is misdirected or misled upon an issue vital to the defense and the evidence does not point unerringly to the guilt of the person accused.

1973VI, § a4z.) If it is probable that in the absence of a misleading instruction the jury would not have returned the verdict complained of, then there has been a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the constitutional provision. [Citations.]” (People v. Rogers (1943) 22 Cal.2d 787, 807 [ 141 P.2d 722 ].

2010(People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320-321 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 27 P.3d 739 ] [failure to instruct on element of enhancement is subject to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], harmless error standard, if associated crime is punishable by indeterminate term of life imprisonment].) Because we reverse the gun enhancement to count 1, we consider the People’s request that we “impose in its place the 10-year gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b), which was found true by the jury but struck by the trial court at sentencing . . . due to the impo

2010(People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320-321 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 27 P.3d 739 ] [failure to instruct on element of enhancement is subject to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], harmless error standard, if associated crime is punishable by indeterminate term of life imprisonment].) Because we reverse the gun enhancement to count 1, we consider the People’s request that we “impose in its place the 10-year gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b), which was found true by the jury but struck by the trial court at sentencing . . . due to the impo

1991“If it is probable that in the absence of a misleading instruction the jury would not have returned the verdict complained of, then there has been a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the constitutional provision. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 807.) In People v. Dail (1943) 22 Cal.2d 642 [ 140 P.2d 828 ], the primary prosecution witnesses were accomplices.

1991“If it is probable that in the absence of a misleading instruction the jury would not have returned the verdict complained of, then there has been a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the constitutional provision. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 807.) In People v. Dail (1943) 22 Cal.2d 642 [ 140 P.2d 828 ], the primary prosecution witnesses were accomplices.

2025(See California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 983 .) Thus, a statement of overriding considerations supported by a legally flawed analysis, or legally flawed assessment of the potential environmental harm, is not able to accurately “show that the Project’s significant environmental effects have been identified, and avoided or mitigated, or that unmitigated effects will be outweighed by the Project’s benefits.” (Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 508 ; see Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1222 [a statement of overriding con

2024(See Solgaard v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. (1971) 6 Cal.3d 361, 370 [court need not give a misleading instruction]; Zannini v. Liker (2022) 9 74 Cal.App.5th 610 , 623 [same].) Moreover, the court in Robison was not considering whether a trial court should instruct a jury on when a landowner has a duty to protect a plaintiff from injury or when a landowner must take precautionary measures.

2019The dissent, in contrast, would expect a defendant in these circumstances to rely on dicta and ignore a holding. 1 The Bailey jury had been given a misleading instruction implying that a completed escape could be found so long as the defendant merely passed " 'beyond some barrier, such as a fence or wall, intended to keep the prisoner within a designated area.' " ( Bailey , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 746 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 , 279 P.3d 1120 ; see id. at pp. 755-757, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 , 279 P.3d 1120 (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) In light of that instruction, the jury's guilty verdict on esca

2019The dissent, in contrast, would expect a defendant in these circumstances to rely on dicta and ignore a holding. 1 The Bailey jury had been given a misleading instruction implying that a completed escape could be found so long as the defendant merely passed " 'beyond some barrier, such as a fence or wall, intended to keep the prisoner within a designated area.' " ( Bailey , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 746 , 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 , 279 P.3d 1120 ; see id. at pp. 755-757, 143 Cal.Rptr.3d 647 , 279 P.3d 1120 (conc. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) In light of that instruction, the jury's guilty verdict on esca

2010(People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320-321 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 27 P.3d 739 ] [failure to instruct on element of enhancement is subject to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], harmless error standard, if associated crime is punishable by indeterminate term of life imprisonment].) Because we reverse the gun enhancement to count 1, we consider the People’s request that we “impose in its place the 10-year gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b), which was found true by the jury but struck by the trial court at sentencing . . . due to the impo

2010(People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320-321 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 27 P.3d 739 ] [failure to instruct on element of enhancement is subject to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], harmless error standard, if associated crime is punishable by indeterminate term of life imprisonment].) Because we reverse the gun enhancement to count 1, we consider the People’s request that we “impose in its place the 10-year gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b), which was found true by the jury but struck by the trial court at sentencing . . . due to the impo

2010(People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320-321 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 27 P.3d 739 ] [failure to instruct on element of enhancement is subject to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], harmless error standard, if associated crime is punishable by indeterminate term of life imprisonment].) Because we reverse the gun enhancement to count 1, we consider the People’s request that we “impose in its place the 10-year gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b), which was found true by the jury but struck by the trial court at sentencing . . . due to the impo

2010(People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 320-321 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851 , 27 P.3d 739 ] [failure to instruct on element of enhancement is subject to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], harmless error standard, if associated crime is punishable by indeterminate term of life imprisonment].) Because we reverse the gun enhancement to count 1, we consider the People’s request that we “impose in its place the 10-year gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b), which was found true by the jury but struck by the trial court at sentencing . . . due to the impo

1976Hirsh, 74 Cal.App.2d 629, 636 [ 169 P.2d 405 ]; Grover v. Sharp and Fellows etc. Co., 66 Cal.App.2d 736, 742 [ 153 P.2d 83 ].) Plaintiff’s theory of liability requires the factfinder to draw two inferences: (1) that plaintiff was in the towmotor at the time the package of rolled paper began to fall and (2) that he left the safe enclosure of the overhead guard either because of the misleading warning posted on the overhead guard or the exposed position of the propane tank, or both.

1976Hirsh, 74 Cal.App.2d 629, 636 [ 169 P.2d 405 ]; Grover v. Sharp and Fellows etc. Co., 66 Cal.App.2d 736, 742 [ 153 P.2d 83 ].) Plaintiff’s theory of liability requires the factfinder to draw two inferences: (1) that plaintiff was in the towmotor at the time the package of rolled paper began to fall and (2) that he left the safe enclosure of the overhead guard either because of the misleading warning posted on the overhead guard or the exposed position of the propane tank, or both.

1976Hirsh, 74 Cal.App.2d 629, 636 [ 169 P.2d 405 ]; Grover v. Sharp and Fellows etc. Co., 66 Cal.App.2d 736, 742 [ 153 P.2d 83 ].) Plaintiff’s theory of liability requires the factfinder to draw two inferences: (1) that plaintiff was in the towmotor at the time the package of rolled paper began to fall and (2) that he left the safe enclosure of the overhead guard either because of the misleading warning posted on the overhead guard or the exposed position of the propane tank, or both.

1976Hirsh, 74 Cal.App.2d 629, 636 [ 169 P.2d 405 ]; Grover v. Sharp and Fellows etc. Co., 66 Cal.App.2d 736, 742 [ 153 P.2d 83 ].) Plaintiff’s theory of liability requires the factfinder to draw two inferences: (1) that plaintiff was in the towmotor at the time the package of rolled paper began to fall and (2) that he left the safe enclosure of the overhead guard either because of the misleading warning posted on the overhead guard or the exposed position of the propane tank, or both.

1976Code, § 600.) (5a) If reason and logic admit an inference to be drawn of the existence of the material facts in issue, the proponent has adduced sufficient evidence to present his case to the jury. ( Blank v. Coffin, 20 Cal.2d 457, 461 [ 126 P.2d 868 ]; Garland v. Hirsh, 74 Cal. App.2d 629, 636 [ 169 P.2d 405 ]; Grover v. Sharp and Fellows etc. Co., 66 Cal. App.2d 736, 742 [ 153 P.2d 83 ].) (4b) Plaintiff's theory of liability requires the factfinder to draw two inferences: (1) that plaintiff was in the towmotor at the time the package of rolled paper began to fall and (2) that he left the saf

1976Code, § 600.) (5a) If reason and logic admit an inference to be drawn of the existence of the material facts in issue, the proponent has adduced sufficient evidence to present his case to the jury. ( Blank v. Coffin, 20 Cal.2d 457, 461 [ 126 P.2d 868 ]; Garland v. Hirsh, 74 Cal. App.2d 629, 636 [ 169 P.2d 405 ]; Grover v. Sharp and Fellows etc. Co., 66 Cal. App.2d 736, 742 [ 153 P.2d 83 ].) (4b) Plaintiff's theory of liability requires the factfinder to draw two inferences: (1) that plaintiff was in the towmotor at the time the package of rolled paper began to fall and (2) that he left the saf

1973See also People v. Jenkins (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 545, 551 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 257 ]; CannisY.

1973See also People v. Jenkins (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 545, 551 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 257 ]; CannisY.

1969(See People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582-585 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 414 P.2d 353 ] . . . ; People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452 , 457-458 . [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 406 P.2d 647 ] . . . ; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 ] . .. . ; People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869 [ 236 P.2d 570 ] . . . ; People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 135-136 [ 169 P.2d 1 ] . . . ; See generally 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) §§ 311, 325, pp: 283-284, .295-296.)” (70 Cal.2d at p. 538.

1969(See People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582-585 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 414 P.2d 353 ] . . . ; People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452 , 457-458 . [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 406 P.2d 647 ] . . . ; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 ] . .. . ; People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869 [ 236 P.2d 570 ] . . . ; People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 135-136 [ 169 P.2d 1 ] . . . ; See generally 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) §§ 311, 325, pp: 283-284, .295-296.)” (70 Cal.2d at p. 538.

1969(See People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582-585 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 414 P.2d 353 ] . . . ; People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452 , 457-458 . [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 406 P.2d 647 ] . . . ; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 ] . .. . ; People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869 [ 236 P.2d 570 ] . . . ; People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 135-136 [ 169 P.2d 1 ] . . . ; See generally 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) §§ 311, 325, pp: 283-284, .295-296.)” (70 Cal.2d at p. 538.

1969(See People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582-585 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 414 P.2d 353 ] . . . ; People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452 , 457-458 . [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 406 P.2d 647 ] . . . ; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 ] . .. . ; People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869 [ 236 P.2d 570 ] . . . ; People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 135-136 [ 169 P.2d 1 ] . . . ; See generally 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) §§ 311, 325, pp: 283-284, .295-296.)” (70 Cal.2d at p. 538.

1969(See People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582-585 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 414 P.2d 353 ] . . . ; People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452 , 457-458 . [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 406 P.2d 647 ] . . . ; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 ] . .. . ; People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869 [ 236 P.2d 570 ] . . . ; People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 135-136 [ 169 P.2d 1 ] . . . ; See generally 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) §§ 311, 325, pp: 283-284, .295-296.)” (70 Cal.2d at p. 538.

1969(See People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582-585 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 414 P.2d 353 ] . . . ; People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452 , 457-458 . [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 406 P.2d 647 ] . . . ; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 ] . .. . ; People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869 [ 236 P.2d 570 ] . . . ; People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 135-136 [ 169 P.2d 1 ] . . . ; See generally 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) §§ 311, 325, pp: 283-284, .295-296.)” (70 Cal.2d at p. 538.

1969(See People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582-585 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 414 P.2d 353 ] . . . ; People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452 , 457-458 . [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 406 P.2d 647 ] . . . ; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 ] . .. . ; People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869 [ 236 P.2d 570 ] . . . ; People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 135-136 [ 169 P.2d 1 ] . . . ; See generally 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) §§ 311, 325, pp: 283-284, .295-296.)” (70 Cal.2d at p. 538.

1969(See People v. Phillips (1966) 64 Cal.2d 574, 582-585 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 225 , 414 P.2d 353 ] . . . ; People v. Williams (1965) 63 Cal.2d 452 , 457-458 . [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 7 , 406 P.2d 647 ] . . . ; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 795 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 620 , 388 P.2d 892 ] . .. . ; People v. Coefield (1951) 37 Cal.2d 865, 868-869 [ 236 P.2d 570 ] . . . ; People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 135-136 [ 169 P.2d 1 ] . . . ; See generally 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) §§ 311, 325, pp: 283-284, .295-296.)” (70 Cal.2d at p. 538.