bracketed portion instruction in California

2023Beginning with the latter assertion, defendant argues the bracketed portion of the instruction “effectively lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof.” We rejected this argument in Xiong, explaining, “ ‘[t]he language of the cautionary instruction [in CALCRIM No. 358] does not reference the People’s burden of proof or the elements of the offense, or in any other way suggest to jurors that the instruction was meant to create an exception to the rule that all elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] The cautionary instruction, given under the circumstances of

2023Beginning with the latter assertion, defendant argues the bracketed portion of the instruction “effectively lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof.” We rejected this argument in Xiong, explaining, “ ‘[t]he language of the cautionary instruction [in CALCRIM No. 358] does not reference the People’s burden of proof or the elements of the offense, or in any other way suggest to jurors that the instruction was meant to create an exception to the rule that all elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] The cautionary instruction, given under the circumstances of

2026(Reyes, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 988–989.) Conversely, the subjective component merely “requires a defendant’s awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another—no more, and no less.” (Knoller, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 143 .) In other words, “[t]he subjective component … is whether the defendant acted with ‘a base, antisocial motive and with wanton disregard for human life.’” (Id. at p. 157.) Unlike the objective component, the subjective element does not “require a defendant’s awareness that his or her conduct has a high probability of causing death.” (Ibid.) 16 Defendant foc

2023The trial court was required to “instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence.” (Martinez, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 953 .) The bracketed portion that was omitted from CALCRIM No. 3470 essentially stated: “If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that (he/she) reasonably associated with [the victim], you may consider that threat in deciding whether the defendant was 4 We note respondent’s claim that defendant is barred from challenging the jury instruction given under the doctrine of invited error.

2022The bench notes to CALCRIM No. 373 states: “If other alleged participants in the crime are testifying, this instruction should not be given or the bracketed portion should be given exempting the testimony of those witnesses.” (Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 373 (2020), p. 139.) The bracketed portion in the instruction reads: “[This instruction does not apply to the testimony of <insert names of testifying coparticipants>.]” (CALCRIM No. 373.) However, the next sentence in the bench notes reads: “It is not error to give the first paragraph of this instruction if a reasonable juror would understand

2021CALCRIM No. 875 as given by the trial court explicitly required the jury to determine, among other things, that “defendant did an act with a semiautomatic pistol,” and that, “[w]hen the defendant acted, he had the present ability to apply force with a semiautomatic firearm to a person.” (Italics added.) We have determined that “semiautomatic firearm” as used here was not used in a way that “differs from its nonlegal meaning.” ( Estrada, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 574-575.) The trial court’s definition elsewhere of the more general term “firearm” did not relieve the jury of its obligation to find

2021Suggested Limiting Instructions Are Not Required Where the Purpose for Those Instructions Are Not Present in the Case “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. [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 th

2021The instructions as a whole fully and fairly set forth the applicable law (Jo, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1152 ) and also accounted for minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimony highlighted by defendant, and there was no basis for the court to give the bracketed instruction to the jury.

2018Beltran, like defendant herein, argued that one of the blood-alcohol permissive inference instructions should not have been given where there was evidence rebutting the inference. ( Id. at p. 240, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 .) Beltran observed that the Bench Notes for CALCRIM Nos. 2100 and 2111 contained language indicating that the bracketed portion of the instruction relating to the permissive inference is only appropriate if there is no evidence to contradict the inference, similar to the CALJIC Use Note at issue in Moore . ( Beltran , at pp. 242-243 & fn. 7, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 .) Beltran held that

2018Beltran, like defendant herein, argued that one of the blood-alcohol permissive inference instructions should not have been given where there was evidence rebutting the inference. ( Id. at p. 240, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 .) Beltran observed that the Bench Notes for CALCRIM Nos. 2100 and 2111 contained language indicating that the bracketed portion of the instruction relating to the permissive inference is only appropriate if there is no evidence to contradict the inference, similar to the CALJIC Use Note at issue in Moore . ( Beltran , at pp. 242-243 & fn. 7, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 489 .) Beltran held that

2016Assuming, without deciding, there was sufficient evidence of mutual combat to justify giving some version of CALCRIM No. 3471, there was no substantial evidence to support giving the bracketed portion of the instruction regarding a right to use self- defense when a defendant who used only non-deadly force is met with such sudden and deadly force the defendant could not withdraw from the fight. "[T]his qualification only 12 applies where the defendant commits a simple assault. [Citations.] '[I]f one makes a felonious assault upon another, or has created appearances justifying the other to launc

2014On appeal, defendant contends: (1) the trial court prejudicially erred and violated his constitutional rights by instructing the jury with the former version of CALCRIM No. 570 on the heat of passion theory of voluntary manslaughter; (2) the prosecutor 1 committed prejudicial misconduct during his supplemental rebuttal argument by misstating the law with respect to heat of passion voluntary manslaughter; and (3) the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471, regarding mutual combat, without also providing a bracketed portion of the instruction covering the s

2014(See People v. Zapien, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 980 .) III Mutual Combat Instruction Finally, we also reject defendant’s assertion the trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 3471 without also providing a bracketed portion of the instruction covering the situation in which the victim of a simple assault “responds in a sudden and deadly counterattack.” CALCRIM No. 3471, as given to the jury in this case, provides: “A person who engages in mutual combat or who is the first one to use physical force has a right to self- defense only if: [¶] One, he actually and in g

1978Since CALJIC (misdemeanor) No. 16.290 is used in many cases, including certain homicide cases, (People v. Wilson (1967) 66 Cal.2d 749 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 427 P.2d 820 ], we invite the Committee on California Jury Instructions to clarify when the bracketed portion of the instruction should be given.

1978Since CALJIC (misdemeanor) No. 16.290 is used in many cases, including certain homicide cases, (People v. Wilson (1967) 66 Cal.2d 749 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 427 P.2d 820 ], we invite the Committee on California Jury Instructions to clarify when the bracketed portion of the instruction should be given.