claim of instructional error in California

2024The parties’ primary disagreement is whether the lesser included instruction on section 288(a) for count 3 the court provided to the jury was sufficient.4 In deciding whether instructional error occurred, we “assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 ; accord, People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 915 .) “‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or f

2022Applicable Law As stated previously, “ ‘ “the correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 987 .) Accordingly, “[i]n assessing a claim of instructional error or ambiguity, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.” (People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 696 ; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) C.

2026(People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 277 ; see also, People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) “In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 ; see also, People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1075 ).

2026(People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927 ; see § 1259.) “ ‘Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the 20 defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim–at least to the extent of ascertaining whether the asserted error would result in prejudice if error it was.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1087 .) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [C

2026(People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581 .) “When considering a claim of instructional error, we review the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) “Where two inconsistent instructions are given and one is correct and the other is wrong, an appellate court cannot speculate which one the jury followed.” (People v. Dollar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1342 .) Reviewing the inst

2026(People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581 .) “When considering a claim of instructional error, we review the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) “Where two inconsistent instructions are given and one is correct and the other is wrong, an appellate court cannot speculate which one the jury followed.” (People v. Dollar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1342 .) Reviewing the inst

2025(See People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 [“In assessing a claim of instructional error, ‘we must view a challenged portion “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record” to determine “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ”].) Second, Dr. Thomas’s own testimony, which the jury heard twice, stressed that the CSAAS factors are “never to be used to determine whether or not someone was molested.” Therefore, even if the jury believed Dr. Thomas’s testimony, the jur

2025There Was No Instructional Error “In assessing a claim of instructional error, ‘we must view a challenged portion “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record” to determine “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a 27. way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 (Jablonski).) Here, the jurors were informed they should “completely disregard” Lopez’s physical restraints.

2026Standard of Review “ ‘We review a claim of instructional error de novo.’ ” (People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1 , 66.) However, “ ‘[i]nstructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) Depending upon the basis of the claimed instructional error, we review it for harmlessness under either Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).

2015Standard of Review “ ‘In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys.’ ” (People v. Lopez (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1305 .) In deciding whether instructional 2 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530 . 7 error occurred, we “assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 (Mills).) In that context, we must then “determine whether i

2023(See People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1315, fn. 43 .) “We review a claim of instructional error de novo. [Citation.] ‘ “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the [trial] court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 .) “ ‘If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 12

2023(People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 419 ; People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) “An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. [Citations.] The challenged instruction is viewed ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether the

2026Standard of Review “ ‘We review a claim of instructional error de novo.’ ” (People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1 , 66.) However, “ ‘[i]nstructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) Depending upon the basis of the claimed instructional error, we review it for harmlessness under either Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).

2026(People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927 ; see § 1259.) “ ‘Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the 20 defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim–at least to the extent of ascertaining whether the asserted error would result in prejudice if error it was.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1087 .) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [C

2026(People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 329 .) “In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys.

2026(See People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 [instructional error]; In re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019, 1035 [constitutional claims].) We must consider the claim of instructional error “ ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.’ ” (Rivera, at p. 326; accord, People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 248 [“ ‘ “[t]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court” ’ ”].) “[A]n instructional error that improperly describes or omits an element of an offense . . . generally is not a structural defect in the trial mechanism tha

2026(People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 277 ; see also, People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) “In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 ; see also, People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1075 ).

2021Instructional Review In reviewing a claim of instructional error, we “must consider the jury instructions as a whole, and not judge a single jury instruction in artificial isolation out of the context of the charge and the entire trial record. [Citations.]” (People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 276 .) “Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions. [Citations.]” (People v. Sanchez, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of t

2025As we ourselves have noted, because the issue involves an error regarding jury instructions and the prejudicial effect of such error, “ ‘[w]e must assume that the jury, had it been given proper instructions, might have drawn different inferences more favorable to the losing [party] . . . .’ ” (Whiteley v. Philip Morris, Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 635, 655 .) So, “we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the claim of instructional error [citations] and we assume the jury might have believed [Helfet’s] version of the facts . . . . [Citations.]” (Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College

2023(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 .) “[W]here it is contended that the trial judge gave an erroneous instruction,” we must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the claim of instructional error.” (Mize- Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 832, 845 (Mize-Kurzman).) However, the giving of an erroneous jury instruction should not be disturbed unless, “‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.’” (Soule v. General Motors

2024The parties’ primary disagreement is whether the lesser included instruction on section 288(a) for count 3 the court provided to the jury was sufficient.4 In deciding whether instructional error occurred, we “assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 ; accord, People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 915 .) “‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or f

2024“In assessing a claim of instructional error or ambiguity, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.” (People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 696 .) No such reasonable likelihood exists here because the actual instruction given was CALCRIM No. 852.

2022“We review a claim of instructional error de novo.” (People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 .) “Whether or not the trial court should have given a ‘particular instruction in any particular case entails the resolution of a mixed question of law and fact,’ which is ‘predominantly legal.’ [Citation.] As such, it should be examined without deference.” (People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 568 .) “ ‘An instruction is argumentative when it recites facts drawn from the evidence in such a manner as to constitute argument to the jury in the guise of a statement of law.’ ” (People

2017Bench Notes “do not ‘have the force of law.’ ” (People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1381 , quoting People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 223, fn. 28 .) Rather, the court was required to “instruct the jury on the points of law applicable to the case, and no particular form is required as long as the instructions are complete and correctly state the law. [Citation.] In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 .) “T

2025If you find that [ . . . defendant. . .] did not violate this law or that the violation was not a substantial factor in bringing about the harm [or if you find the violation was excused], then you must still decide whether [ . . .defendant. . .] was negligent in light of the other instructions.” The directions for use accompanying the instruction state that the bracketed portions surrounding potential excuse should be given “[i]f a rebuttal is offered on the ground that the violation was excused. . .” 5 contended that the trial judge gave an erroneous instruction,’ we must ‘view the evidence i

2023(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 .) “[W]here it is contended that the trial judge gave an erroneous instruction,” we must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the claim of instructional error.” (Mize- Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 832, 845 (Mize-Kurzman).) However, the giving of an erroneous jury instruction should not be disturbed unless, “‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.’” (Soule v. General Motors

2024The parties’ primary disagreement is whether the lesser included instruction on section 288(a) for count 3 the court provided to the jury was sufficient.4 In deciding whether instructional error occurred, we “assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 ; accord, People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 915 .) “‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or f

2022(See People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 .) “ ‘In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys.’ ” (People v. Lopez (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1305 .) Under section 12022.7, subdivision (f), “ ‘great bodily injury’ means a significant or substantial physical injury.” (§ 12022.7, subd. (f).) That is, “not insignificant, trivial or moderate.” (People v. Armstrong (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1066 .) “[D]etermining whether a victim has suffered physical harm amounting to gre

2026(See People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 [instructional error]; In re Taylor (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1019, 1035 [constitutional claims].) We must consider the claim of instructional error “ ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.’ ” (Rivera, at p. 326; accord, People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 248 [“ ‘ “[t]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court” ’ ”].) “[A]n instructional error that improperly describes or omits an element of an offense . . . generally is not a structural defect in the trial mechanism tha

2026The Initial Instructions to the Jury Were Erroneous “All criminal defendants have the right to ‘a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824 .) Thus, “[t]he trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.” (Ibid.) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the

2025(People v. Franklin (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 881, 887, fn. 4 ; see People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 217–218; People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “When considering a claim of instructional error, we view the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine 6. whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) “We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation

2025(People v. Franklin (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 881, 887, fn. 4 ; see People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 217–218; People v. Cole, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1210 .) “When considering a claim of instructional error, we view the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner. [Citation.]” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) We presume jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating all instructions given.

2021Instructional Review In reviewing a claim of instructional error, we “must consider the jury instructions as a whole, and not judge a single jury instruction in artificial isolation out of the context of the charge and the entire trial record. [Citations.]” (People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 276 .) “Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions. [Citations.]” (People v. Sanchez, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of t

2021(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “In assessing a claim of instructional error, ‘we must view a challenged portion “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record” to determine “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) Moreover, we presume that jurors are “able to understand and correlate instructions” and “have followed the court’s instructions.” (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852 .) We are not pers

2025The physical component is satisfied by the performance of ‘an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life.’[5] [Citation.] The mental component is the requirement 5 “To suffice for implied malice murder, the defendant’s act must not merely be dangerous to life in some vague or speculative sense; it must ‘ “involve[ ] a high degree of probability that it will result in death.” ’ ” (People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 989.) 8. that the defendant ‘knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and … acts with conscious disregard for life.’ [Citations.]” ’ ” (People v. S

2025(People v. Franklin (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 881, 887, fn. 4 ; see People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 217–218; People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “When considering a claim of instructional error, we view the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine 6. whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) “We interpret the instructions so as to support the judgment if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation

2024“In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 .) “The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.” (People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824 .) “We review a claim of instructional error de novo. [Citation.] The challenged instruction is considered ‘in the context of the instructions as 29 a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable lik

2024(People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 (Mitchell).) “In considering a claim of instructional error we must first 4 Torres had methamphetamines in his system at the time of his death. 6. ascertain what the relevant law provides .…” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 .) “The challenged instruction is viewed ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.’” ( Mitchell, supra, at p. 579 .) B.

2023“We review a claim of instructional error de novo. [Citation.] The challenged instruction is considered ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 309 , 326 (Rivera).) “ ‘Moreover, any theoretical possibility of confusion [may be] diminished by the parties’ closing arguments.’ ” (People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1220 , abrogated on a different ground as stated in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 121

2023Although we agree that CALCRIM No. 1193 could be clarified, it is not reasonably likely the jury would have misapplied the instruction on this record.17 “We review a claim of instructional error de novo. [Citation.] The challenged instruction is considered ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 309 , 326 (Rivera).) “ ‘Moreover, any theoretical possibility of confusion [may be] diminished by the parties’ closing argum

2025Yet a claim of instructional error that affects the defendant’s substantial rights is not forfeited by failure to object (People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927 ; § 1259), and “[a]scertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 ).

2024(See § 1259; People v. Andersen, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 1249 .) “An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. [Citations.] The challenged instruction is viewed ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likeliho

2026Legal Principles “ ‘In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.’ ” (People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 58 .) This obligation includes the duty to instruct on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence “ ‘ “when the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to prove guilt.” ’ ” (People v. Contreras (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 587, 591 (Contreras).) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo.” (People v.

2025The trial court did not err in instructing the jury regarding aiding and abetting implied malice murder A. Standard of review “We review defendant’s claims of instructional error de novo.” (People v. Johnson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 702, 707 .) “‘In conducting this review, we first ascertain the relevant law and then “determine the meaning of the instructions in this regard.” [Citation.] [¶] The proper test for judging the adequacy of instructions is to decide whether the trial court “fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law . . . .”’” (Ibid.) “In reviewing a claim of instructional erro

2026Legal Principles “ ‘In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.’ ” (People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 58 .) This obligation includes the duty to instruct on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence “ ‘ “when the prosecution substantially relies on circumstantial evidence to prove guilt.” ’ ” (People v. Contreras (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 587, 591 (Contreras).) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo.” (People v.

2023(People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 733 .) “[W]here it is contended that the trial judge gave an erroneous instruction,” we must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the claim of instructional error.” (Mize- Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 832, 845 (Mize-Kurzman).) However, the giving of an erroneous jury instruction should not be disturbed unless, “‘after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.’” (Soule v. General Motors

2026Standard of Review “ ‘We review a claim of instructional error de novo.’ ” (People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1 , 66.) However, “ ‘[i]nstructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) Depending upon the basis of the claimed instructional error, we review it for harmlessness under either Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).

2025(People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 529-530 .) “ ‘We review a claim of instructional error de novo.’ ” (People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1 , 66.) In doing so, we consider the challenged instruction “ ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 .) And we “ ‘assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ ” (People v. Richard

2025(People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 .) “In assessing a claim of instructional error, we examine the instructions as a whole.

2024(People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 .) In assessing a claim of instructional error, we look to the instructions as a whole and the entire record of the trial, including the arguments of counsel, and we assume that jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating all instructions given.