propriety instruction in California

113 California opinions name it 3 courts 1876–2026 17 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (32)

Case	Followed	Cited
Jackson v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.green cal · 2017 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023In certain cases involving incompetent adult defendants, courts have held that if “the statutes do not authorize . . . a [competency] hearing, the court’s convening of one . . . exceed[s] its jurisdiction.” (People v. Quiroz (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1380 ; accord, In re Taitano (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 233, 249-256 .) But as our Supreme Court has made clear, these cases are “not applicable where there is a statutory basis for holding a competency hearing.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) For example, the statutory scheme for adults does not expressly require a court hea 2023In certain cases involving incompetent adult defendants, courts have held that if “the statutes do not authorize . . . a [competency] hearing, the court’s convening of one . . . exceed[s] its jurisdiction.” (People v. Quiroz (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1380 ; accord, In re Taitano (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 233, 249-256 .) But as our Supreme Court has made clear, these cases are “not applicable where there is a statutory basis for holding a competency hearing.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) For example, the statutory scheme for adults does not expressly require a court hea	2	2
In re Taitanogreen calctapp5d · 2017 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023In certain cases involving incompetent adult defendants, courts have held that if “the statutes do not authorize . . . a [competency] hearing, the court’s convening of one . . . exceed[s] its jurisdiction.” (People v. Quiroz (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1380 ; accord, In re Taitano (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 233, 249-256 .) But as our Supreme Court has made clear, these cases are “not applicable where there is a statutory basis for holding a competency hearing.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) For example, the statutory scheme for adults does not expressly require a court hea 2023In certain cases involving incompetent adult defendants, courts have held that if “the statutes do not authorize . . . a [competency] hearing, the court’s convening of one . . . exceed[s] its jurisdiction.” (People v. Quiroz (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1380 ; accord, In re Taitano (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 233, 249-256 .) But as our Supreme Court has made clear, these cases are “not applicable where there is a statutory basis for holding a competency hearing.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) For example, the statutory scheme for adults does not expressly require a court hea	2	2
Perry v. Superior Courtgreen cal · 1962 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1971 2 sentences 1971The function of the trial court in reviewing an order of the magistrate made pursuant to section 995 is stated in People v. Heard, 266 Cal.App.2d 747, 749-750 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 374 ]: “However, in considering a motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995, the superior court is sitting as a reviewing court and is bound by the rules enunciated in Perry v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 276, 283-284 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 368 P.2d 529 ]; ‘Although the magistrate, in reaching his decision [to hold an accused to answer following a preliminary hearing], may weigh the evidence, resolve 867 conflicts, and giv 1971The function of the trial court in reviewing an order of the magistrate made pursuant to section 995 is stated in People v. Heard, 266 Cal.App.2d 747, 749-750 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 374 ]: “However, in considering a motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995, the superior court is sitting as a reviewing court and is bound by the rules enunciated in Perry v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 276, 283-284 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 368 P.2d 529 ]; ‘Although the magistrate, in reaching his decision [to hold an accused to answer following a preliminary hearing], may weigh the evidence, resolve 867 conflicts, and giv	2	2
Badillo v. Superior Courtgreen cal · 1956 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1968–1971 2 sentences 1971As aptly stated in Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 269, 271-272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]: “ ‘No problem is presented in applying this rule [excluding illegally obtained evidence] in cases involving searches and seizures in which the facts bearing on the legality of the search or seizure are undisputed and establish as a matter of law that the evidence is or is not admissible. 1971As aptly stated in Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 269, 271-272 [ 294 P.2d 23 ]: “ ‘No problem is presented in applying this rule [excluding illegally obtained evidence] in cases involving searches and seizures in which the facts bearing on the legality of the search or seizure are undisputed and establish as a matter of law that the evidence is or is not admissible.	2	2
People v. Grahamgreen calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
People v. Northerngreen calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
People v. McGowangreen calctapp · 1969 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
People v. Horrigangreen calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
People v. Browngreen calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
People v. Parkergreen calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
People v. Molanogreen calctapp · 1967 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
People v. Elliottgreen calctapp · 1966 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
People v. Giovianninigreen calctapp · 1968 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	2
Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co.green cal · 1949 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1959–1961	2	2
Wells v. Lloydgreen cal · 1942 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1949–1959	2	2
Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College Districtgreen calctapp · 2012 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022 2 sentences 2022(Manavian, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 1145 .) Instead, Manavian, refers to a portion of Mize-Kurzman that discusses whether it was appropriate to instruct a jury that “efforts to determine if a practice violates the law are not protected disclosures.” (Manavian, at p. 1145; see Mize-Kurzman, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at pp. 849, 859-860.) However, Mize-Kurzman separately discussed the propriety of an instruction that “[i]nformation passed along to a supervisor in the normal course of duties is not a protected disclosure” and reached a conclusion contrary to that reached in Manavian. 2021(Mize- Kurzman, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at pp. 845, 858–859.) The term “publicly known” was the term used by the trial court in its jury instructions, which the appellate court, of necessity, discussed in determining the propriety of the instruction.	1	2
Victor v. Nebraskagreen scotus · 1994 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2014 2 sentences 2006The trial court instructed the jury with what was then the standard instruction on reasonable doubt (former CALJIC No. 2.90 (5th ed. 1988)), which included a definition of reasonable doubt as that which “is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.” (Italics added.) Although the United States Supreme Court expressed reservations about the italicized portion of that instruction, it upheld the instruction against constitutional challenge (Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 6 [ 127 L.Ed 2006The trial court instructed the jury with what was then the standard instruction on reasonable doubt (former CALJIC No. 2.90 (5th ed. 1988)), which included a definition of reasonable doubt as that which “is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.” (Italics added.) Although the United States Supreme Court expressed reservations about the italicized portion of that instruction, it upheld the instruction against constitutional challenge (Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 6 [ 127 L.Ed	1	2
People v. Banksgreen cal · 1993 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004(People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, 945 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 524 , 863 P.2d 769 ].) While it may not be unusual for parties to agree to arbitrate the propriety of defense costs along with attorney fees, no court has interpreted subdivision (c) as requiring this result. 2004(People v. Banks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 926, 945 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 524 , 863 P.2d 769 ].) While it may not be unusual for parties to agree to arbitrate the propriety of defense costs along with attorney fees, no court has interpreted subdivision (c) as requiring this result.	1	2
Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co.green cal · 1958 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1960–1962 2 sentences 1962In Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652 [ 320 P.2d 500 ], the court was construing the meaning of the code section—not considering the propriety of an instruction under attack. 1962In Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal.2d 652 [ 320 P.2d 500 ], the court was construing the meaning of the code section—not considering the propriety of an instruction under attack.	1	2
People v. Del Cerrogreen · 1909 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1925–1931	1	2
People v. Burneygreen cal · 2009 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023	1	1
Carter v. Dept. of Veterans Affairsgreen cal · 2006 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022	1	1
Conservatorship of George H.green calctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019	1	1
People v. Garciagreen calctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019	1	1
People v. Sullivangreen calctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019	1	1
Goehring v. Chapman Universitygreen calctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
People v. Partidagreen cal · 2005 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
People v. AUSBIEgreen calctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
People v. McKinneygreen calctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
People v. Waidlagreen cal · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
People v. Harrisgreen cal · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
People v. Heardgreen cal · 2003 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (48)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Canizales green cal · 2019 2 sentences 2024Ivy further argues that, assuming without conceding that the jury’s verdicts have a preclusive effect on his petition, the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591 , limiting the use of the “kill zone” jury instruction — given in this case — represents a significant change in the law that warrants reexamination of the propriety of that instruction and the jury’s findings of intent to kill. 2024Stone argues that the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591 (Canizales), limiting the use of the “kill zone” jury instruction — given in this case — represents a significant change in the law that warrants reexamination of the propriety of that instruction and the jury’s findings of intent to kill in his case below.	3	2021–2024
People v. Mason green calctapp · 1968 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	3	1969–1970
People v. Besold green cal · 1908 2 sentences 1925In determining the propriety of an instruction the entire charge must be considered, and if as a whole it correctly states the law it is free from error, notwithstanding that selected passages therefrom may state a proposition without at the same time setting forth the exceptions or qualifications to which it is subject in its application to the particular case (People v. Dell Cerro, 9 Cal. App. 764 [ 100 Pac. 887 ]; People v. Warren, 130 Cal. 678 [ 63 Pac. 87 ] ; People v. Besold, 154 Cal. 363 [ 97 Pac. 871 ]). 1925In determining the propriety of an instruction the entire charge must be considered, and if as a whole it correctly states the law it is free from error, notwithstanding that selected passages therefrom may state a proposition without at the same time setting forth the exceptions or qualifications to which it is subject in its application to the particular case (People v. Dell Cerro, 9 Cal. App. 764 [ 100 Pac. 887 ]; People v. Warren, 130 Cal. 678 [ 63 Pac. 87 ] ; People v. Besold, 154 Cal. 363 [ 97 Pac. 871 ]).	3	1925–1943
Lemons v. Regents of University of California green cal · 1978 2 sentences 2023Proc., §§ 607a, 608; Ayala, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358 .) It is “improper to give an instruction which lacks support in the evidence, even if the instruction correctly states the law.” (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 875 .) In reviewing the evidence supporting the jury instruction, “we assume the jury might have believed appellant’s 28 Suffolk’s proposed Special Instruction No. 1 stated: “Plans and/or specifications for a project are not ‘correct’ if the contractor follows the plans and/or specifications but still encounters difficulty in constructin 2023Proc., §§ 607a, 608; Ayala, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358 .) It is “improper to give an instruction which lacks support in the evidence, even if the instruction correctly states the law.” (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 875 .) In reviewing the evidence supporting the jury instruction, “we assume the jury might have believed appellant’s 28 Suffolk’s proposed Special Instruction No. 1 stated: “Plans and/or specifications for a project are not ‘correct’ if the contractor follows the plans and/or specifications but still encounters difficulty in constructin	2	2023–2023
Ayala v. ARROYO VISTA FAMILY HEALTH CENTER green calctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2023Proc., §§ 607a, 608; Ayala, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358 .) It is “improper to give an instruction which lacks support in the evidence, even if the instruction correctly states the law.” (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 875 .) In reviewing the evidence supporting the jury instruction, “we assume the jury might have believed appellant’s 28 Suffolk’s proposed Special Instruction No. 1 stated: “Plans and/or specifications for a project are not ‘correct’ if the contractor follows the plans and/or specifications but still encounters difficulty in constructin 2023Proc., §§ 607a, 608; Ayala, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358 .) It is “improper to give an instruction which lacks support in the evidence, even if the instruction correctly states the law.” (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 875 .) In reviewing the evidence supporting the jury instruction, “we assume the jury might have believed appellant’s 28 Suffolk’s proposed Special Instruction No. 1 stated: “Plans and/or specifications for a project are not ‘correct’ if the contractor follows the plans and/or specifications but still encounters difficulty in constructin	2	2023–2023
People v. Quiroz green calctapp · 2016 2 sentences 2023In certain cases involving incompetent adult defendants, courts have held that if “the statutes do not authorize . . . a [competency] hearing, the court’s convening of one . . . exceed[s] its jurisdiction.” (People v. Quiroz (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1380 ; accord, In re Taitano (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 233, 249-256 .) But as our Supreme Court has made clear, these cases are “not applicable where there is a statutory basis for holding a competency hearing.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) For example, the statutory scheme for adults does not expressly require a court hea 2023In certain cases involving incompetent adult defendants, courts have held that if “the statutes do not authorize . . . a [competency] hearing, the court’s convening of one . . . exceed[s] its jurisdiction.” (People v. Quiroz (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1380 ; accord, In re Taitano (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 233, 249-256 .) But as our Supreme Court has made clear, these cases are “not applicable where there is a statutory basis for holding a competency hearing.” (Jackson v. Superior Court (2017) 4 Cal.5th 96, 107 .) For example, the statutory scheme for adults does not expressly require a court hea	2	2023–2023
Mayes v. Bryan green calctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2023Proc., §§ 607a, 608; Ayala, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358 .) It is “improper to give an instruction which lacks support in the evidence, even if the instruction correctly states the law.” (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 875 .) In reviewing the evidence supporting the jury instruction, “we assume the jury might have believed appellant’s 28 Suffolk’s proposed Special Instruction No. 1 stated: “Plans and/or specifications for a project are not ‘correct’ if the contractor follows the plans and/or specifications but still encounters difficulty in constructin 2023Proc., §§ 607a, 608; Ayala, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 1358 .) It is “improper to give an instruction which lacks support in the evidence, even if the instruction correctly states the law.” (LeMons v. Regents of University of California (1978) 21 Cal.3d 869, 875 .) In reviewing the evidence supporting the jury instruction, “we assume the jury might have believed appellant’s 28 Suffolk’s proposed Special Instruction No. 1 stated: “Plans and/or specifications for a project are not ‘correct’ if the contractor follows the plans and/or specifications but still encounters difficulty in constructin	2	2023–2023
People v. Lemcke green cal · 2021 2 sentences 2021(Id. at pp. 461-463.) In a concurring opinion, Justice Liu agreed the claim was forfeited and any error was harmless, but urged the high court to reexamine the propriety of the instruction. ( Sánchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 495, 498 (conc. opn. of Liu, J.).) In People v. Lemcke (2021) 11 Cal.5th 644 (Lemcke), our high court reexamined the propriety of CALCRIM No. 315, and concluded that inclusion of the certainty factor did not violate the defendant’s due process rights. 2021The court noted the instruction did not direct the jury that “ ‘certainty equals accuracy’ ” ( Lemcke, supra, at p. 657 ), that the defendant was permitted to call an eyewitness identification expert who explained the limited circumstances when certainty and accuracy are positively correlated, and that the instruction expressly stated that the prosecutor must establish the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt.	2	2021–2021
People v. Watson green cal · 1956 2 sentences 2016(People v. Rodriguez (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066 .) The court rejected the defendant’s challenges to the propriety of the instruction itself on constitutional and other grounds, finding the instruction “suffers no constitutional or other infirmity and may be given in an appropriate case.” (People v. Saddler, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 681 .) The court then considered the propriety of the instruction in the defendant’s specific case and, noting that “a contradiction is not a failure to explain or deny,” held “[s]ince there were no facts or evidence in the People’s case which [the] defendant f 2016(People v. Rodriguez (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066 .) The court rejected the defendant’s challenges to the propriety of the instruction itself on constitutional and other grounds, finding the instruction “suffers no constitutional or other infirmity and may be given in an appropriate case.” (People v. Saddler, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 681 .) The court then considered the propriety of the instruction in the defendant’s specific case and, noting that “a contradiction is not a failure to explain or deny,” held “[s]ince there were no facts or evidence in the People’s case which [the] defendant f	2	2013–2016
People v. Posey green cal · 2004 2 sentences 2013(Posey, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 218 .) Schimmel contends that this instruction is erroneous for two reasons. 2013(Posey, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 218 .) Schimmel contends that this instruction is erroneous for two reasons.	2	2013–2013
Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. green cal · 2008 2 sentences 2013(Id. at p. 867.) Nonetheless, the court stated that under the circumstances, the 1296 manufacturer had no duty to warn because “[a] sophisticated organization like [the packing company] does not have to be told that gasoline is volatile and that sparks from an electrical connection or friction can cause ignition.” (Id. at p. 866.) In Johnson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 68 , our Supreme Court observed only that the appellate court had impliedly adopted the sophisticated user defense, without discussing the propriety of the defense as applied. 2013*(Id. at p. 867.) Nonetheless, the court stated that under the circumstances, the manufacturer had no duty to warn because “[a] sophisticated organization like [the packing company] does not have to be told that gasoline is volatile and that sparks from an electrical connection or friction can cause ignition.” (Id. at p. 866.) In Johnson, supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 68 , our Supreme Court observed only that the appellate court had impliedly adopted the sophisticated user defense, without discussing the propriety of the defense as applied.	2	2013–2013
People v. Hernandez green calctapp · 1968 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ]; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ]; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]); (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]); (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 846-8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	1969–1969
People v. Hernandez green calctapp · 1968 2 sentences 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8 1969There are four principal situations where the propriety of the instruction has become a serious issue in California cases: (1) The trial judge fails to give the instruction sua sponte (People v. Elliott, 241 Cal.App.2d 659, 667-668 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 757 ] ; People v. Graham, 251 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 577 ] ; People v. Horrigan, 253 Cal.App.2d 519, 522-523 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 403 ]) ; (2) the trial judge gives the instruction sua sponte (People v. Brown, 253 Cal.App.2d 820, 830 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 368 ]) ; (3) the prosecution requests the instruction (People v. Molano, 253 Cal.App.2d 841, 8	2	1969–1969
People Ex Rel. Thisby v. Reclamation District No. 556 green cal · 1900	2	1925–1931
Peolple v. Warren green cal · 1900	2	1925–1931
People v. Battle green calctapp · 2011	1	2026–2026
People v. Nieto Benitez green cal · 1992	1	2025–2025
People v. Ramirez green cal · 2021	1	2023–2023
People v. Cook green cal · 2007	1	2023–2023
Manavian v. Dep't of Justice green calctapp5d · 2018	1	2022–2022
Allen v. United States green · 1896	1	2021–2021
People v. Barraza green cal · 1979	1	2021–2021
People v. Gainer green cal · 1977	1	2021–2021
People v. Sánchez green cal · 2016	1	2021–2021
People v. Kopp green calctapp5d · 2019	1	2021–2021
Conservatorship of Symington green calctapp · 1989	1	2019–2019
Conservatorship of Davis green calctapp · 1981	1	2019–2019
People v. Saddler green cal · 1979	1	2016–2016
People v. Rodriguez green calctapp · 2009	1	2016–2016
People v. Rogers green cal · 2006	1	2014–2014
People v. Purta green calctapp · 1968	1	2013–2013
Albertson v. Raboff green cal · 1956	1	2013–2013
People v. Velasquez green calctapp · 1984	1	2013–2013
People v. Anderson green calctapp · 2007	1	2013–2013
Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. green calctapp · 2009	1	2013–2013
Alcala v. Vazmar Corp. green calctapp · 2008	1	2013–2013
Gudger v. Manton green cal · 1943	1	2013–2013
People v. Saavedra green calctapp · 2007	1	2013–2013
People v. Carter green cal · 2003	1	2013–2013
People v. Staten green cal · 2000	1	2008–2008

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 187 (19) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 352 (8) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 245 (5) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 1101 (4) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 210 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 113 (1876–2026) MO 61 (1860–2015) IL 57 (1882–2025) TX 56 (1917–2026) NY 49 (1854–2018) IN 47 (1906–2026) PA 31 (1908–2025) FL 28 (1902–2025) NC 23 (1850–2025) MD 23 (1917–2021) CO 22 (1900–2024) MS 22 (1968–2009) AL 22 (1854–2016) IA 21 (1918–2022) OH 21 (1970–2026) MI 21 (1900–2021) UT 19 (1981–2020) NE 18 (1910–1998) WA 16 (1919–2025) CT 15 (1936–2010) WY 15 (1945–2024) KY 14 (1914–2016) NJ 14 (1884–2021) OR 14 (1898–2023) WV 13 (1882–2025) TN 12 (1934–2025) MA 11 (1961–2023) LA 10 (1981–1995) MN 10 (1932–2013) AZ 10 (1966–2015) KS 10 (1897–2016) NV 9 (1956–2014) SD 9 (1909–2025) VA 9 (1876–1997) MT 9 (1895–1987) RI 9 (1980–2026) ME 8 (1855–1981) AR 7 (1946–2010) OK 6 (1935–1995) GA 6 (1877–2023) NM 6 (1963–2018) DC 5 (1893–1996) HI 5 (1911–2005) DE 5 (1912–2008) VT 5 (1868–2006) NH 4 (1820–1995) ID 4 (1919–2022) AK 3 (1977–1990) WI 3 (1958–1973) ND 3 (1908–1993) SC 2 (1881–2014) VI 2 (1981–2005)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check