duty to give instruction in California

2016(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 .) “[W]hen the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act.” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “The [unanimity] instruction is designed in part to prevent the jury from amalgamating evidence of multiple offenses, no one of which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to conclude beyond a 13 reasonable doubt that a defendant must have done something sufficient to convict on one count.” (People v. Del

2015(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 .) “[W]hen the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act.” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “The [unanimity] instruction is designed in part to prevent the jury from amalgamating evidence of multiple offenses, no one of which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant must have done something sufficient to convict on one count.” (People v. Delett

2016(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 .) “[W]hen the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act.” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “The [unanimity] instruction is designed in part to prevent the jury from amalgamating evidence of multiple offenses, no one of which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to conclude beyond a 13 reasonable doubt that a defendant must have done something sufficient to convict on one count.” (People v. Del

2015(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 .) “[W]hen the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act.” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “The [unanimity] instruction is designed in part to prevent the jury from amalgamating evidence of multiple offenses, no one of which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant must have done something sufficient to convict on one count.” (People v. Delett

2016(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 .) “[W]hen the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act.” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “The [unanimity] instruction is designed in part to prevent the jury from amalgamating evidence of multiple offenses, no one of which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to conclude beyond a 13 reasonable doubt that a defendant must have done something sufficient to convict on one count.” (People v. Del

2015(People v. Diedrich (1982) 31 Cal.3d 263, 281 .) “[W]hen the evidence suggests more than one discrete crime, either the prosecution must elect among the crimes or the court must require the jury to agree on the same criminal act.” (People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132 .) “The [unanimity] instruction is designed in part to prevent the jury from amalgamating evidence of multiple offenses, no one of which has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in order to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant must have done something sufficient to convict on one count.” (People v. Delett

2024(People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 133 ; People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569 .) A trial court must instruct on a defense upon which the defendant relies, or on a defense supported by substantial evidence that is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.

2024(People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 133 ; People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569 .) A trial court must instruct on a defense upon which the defendant relies, or on a defense supported by substantial evidence that is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case.

2022Applicable Law and Standard of Review The appellate court may review any instruction given, even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby. (§ 1259.) Even absent a request, the trial court has a duty to give an instruction “ ‘where the circumstances of the case so dictate.’ ” People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 , quoting People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 311, fn. 8 ; § 1259.) “The trial court has a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte on all lesser included offenses if there is substantial evidence fr

2022Applicable Law and Standard of Review The appellate court may review any instruction given, even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby. (§ 1259.) Even absent a request, the trial court has a duty to give an instruction “ ‘where the circumstances of the case so dictate.’ ” People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 , quoting People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 311, fn. 8 ; § 1259.) “The trial court has a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte on all lesser included offenses if there is substantial evidence fr

2022(People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 312 , quoting Breverman, at p. 162; People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201, fn. 8 [evidence is substantial if “a reasonable jury could find [it] persuasive”].) “[S]ubstantial evidence to support instructions on a lesser included offense may exist even in the face of inconsistencies presented by the defense itself” and “even when as a matter of trial tactics a defendant … fails to request the instruction.” (Breverman, at pp. 154, 162‒163.) “Doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant instructions should be resolved in favor of the accused

2022(People v. Haley (2004) 34 Cal.4th 283, 312 , quoting Breverman, at p. 162; People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201, fn. 8 [evidence is substantial if “a reasonable jury could find [it] persuasive”].) “[S]ubstantial evidence to support instructions on a lesser included offense may exist even in the face of inconsistencies presented by the defense itself” and “even when as a matter of trial tactics a defendant … fails to request the instruction.” (Breverman, at pp. 154, 162‒163.) “Doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant instructions should be resolved in favor of the accused

2016(See Breverman, at pp. 162-163.) Heat of passion “is a state of mind caused by legally sufficient provocation that causes a person to act, not out of rational thought but out of unconsidered reaction to the provocation.” (Beltran, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 942 .) “The provocation must be such that an average, sober person would be so inflamed that he or she would lose reason and judgment.

2016But defendant neither objected to the argument, thus forfeiting any claim of misconduct, nor did he request a limiting instruction. ( People v. Lopez (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1028 , 1073, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 570 , 301 P.3d 1177 ; Evid.

2016But defendant neither objected to the argument, thus forfeiting any claim of misconduct, nor did he request a limiting instruction. ( People v. Lopez (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1028 , 1073, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 570 , 301 P.3d 1177 ; Evid.

2016First, he claims the trial court failed to instruct the jury to consider and decide each count separately, but as he concedes, the trial court did not have a duty to give the instruction without a request. ( People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , 456, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) Second, he claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that the jury could indiscriminately use the *81 evidence of all counts to prove each count.

2016First, he claims the trial court failed to instruct the jury to consider and decide each count separately, but as he concedes, the trial court did not have a duty to give the instruction without a request. ( People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441 , 456, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) Second, he claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that the jury could indiscriminately use the *81 evidence of all counts to prove each count.

2016As our Supreme Court explained in Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1130-1131 , by requesting the instructions the court gave and not requesting any additional instructions, a party forfeits the right to argue on appeal that the court misinstructed the jury: “ ‘ “ ‘In a civil case, each of the parties must propose complete and comprehensive instructions in accordance with his theory of the litigation; if the parties do not do so, the court has no 30 duty to instruct on its own motion.’ [Citations.]” [Citation.] Neither a trial court nor a reviewing court in a civil actio

2016(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154-155 (Breverman).) An appellate court independently determines whether the instructions should have been given (People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 584 ), viewing the evidence in the light that 4 most favors a duty to give the instruction and without evaluating the credibility of witnesses.

2014"The court has a sua sponte duty to give [an uncharged conspiracy] instruction when the prosecution has not charged the crime of conspiracy but 7 has introduced evidence of a conspiracy to prove liability for other offenses or to introduce hearsay statements of coconspirators." (Bench Notes following CALCRIM No. 416 [Evidence of Uncharged Conspiracy], italics added; People v. Ditson (1962) 57 Cal.2d 415, 447 .) The People claim the trial court erred because "the statements . . . made by Diaz to the CI against [Sherman] as statements of a coconspirator" were inadmissible without proof of severa

2014"The court has a sua sponte duty to give [an uncharged conspiracy] instruction when the prosecution has not charged the crime of conspiracy but 7 has introduced evidence of a conspiracy to prove liability for other offenses or to introduce hearsay statements of coconspirators." (Bench Notes following CALCRIM No. 416 [Evidence of Uncharged Conspiracy], italics added; People v. Ditson (1962) 57 Cal.2d 415, 447 .) The People claim the trial court erred because "the statements . . . made by Diaz to the CI against [Sherman] as statements of a coconspirator" were inadmissible without proof of severa

2014"The court has a sua sponte duty to give [an uncharged conspiracy] instruction when the prosecution has not charged the crime of conspiracy but 7 has introduced evidence of a conspiracy to prove liability for other offenses or to introduce hearsay statements of coconspirators." (Bench Notes following CALCRIM No. 416 [Evidence of Uncharged Conspiracy], italics added; People v. Ditson (1962) 57 Cal.2d 415, 447 .) The People claim the trial court erred because "the statements . . . made by Diaz to the CI against [Sherman] as statements of a coconspirator" were inadmissible without proof of severa

2014We answer that question in the negative. 6 A trial court has a duty to instruct the jury, sua sponte, " ' "on general principles which are closely and openly connected with the facts before the court." ' " (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 823 .) This includes a duty to instruct the jury on the defense theory of the case and on any affirmative defenses that are relied upon by the defendant, or that are supported by substantial evidence and are not inconsistent with the defense theory of the case.

2009"A trial court `must instruct even without request on the general principles of law relevant to and governing the case. [Citation.] That obligation includes instructions on all of the elements of a charged offense. [Citation.]' ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233 , 1311 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 , 850 P.2d 1 ].) `This rule applies to the "elements" of an "enhancement."' ( People v. Winslow (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 680 , 688 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 901 ], fn. omitted.)" ( People v. Clark (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 709 , 714-715 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ].) It follows that the rule also applies to the fundamenta

2009"A trial court `must instruct even without request on the general principles of law relevant to and governing the case. [Citation.] That obligation includes instructions on all of the elements of a charged offense. [Citation.]' ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233 , 1311 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 , 850 P.2d 1 ].) `This rule applies to the "elements" of an "enhancement."' ( People v. Winslow (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 680 , 688 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 901 ], fn. omitted.)" ( People v. Clark (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 709 , 714-715 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ].) It follows that the rule also applies to the fundamenta

2009"A trial court `must instruct even without request on the general principles of law relevant to and governing the case. [Citation.] That obligation includes instructions on all of the elements of a charged offense. [Citation.]' ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233 , 1311 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 , 850 P.2d 1 ].) `This rule applies to the "elements" of an "enhancement."' ( People v. Winslow (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 680 , 688 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 901 ], fn. omitted.)" ( People v. Clark (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 709 , 714-715 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ].) It follows that the rule also applies to the fundamenta

2009"A trial court `must instruct even without request on the general principles of law relevant to and governing the case. [Citation.] That obligation includes instructions on all of the elements of a charged offense. [Citation.]' ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233 , 1311 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 , 850 P.2d 1 ].) `This rule applies to the "elements" of an "enhancement."' ( People v. Winslow (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 680 , 688 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 901 ], fn. omitted.)" ( People v. Clark (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 709 , 714-715 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ].) It follows that the rule also applies to the fundamenta

2009"A trial court `must instruct even without request on the general principles of law relevant to and governing the case. [Citation.] That obligation includes instructions on all of the elements of a charged offense. [Citation.]' ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233 , 1311 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 , 850 P.2d 1 ].) `This rule applies to the "elements" of an "enhancement."' ( People v. Winslow (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 680 , 688 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 901 ], fn. omitted.)" ( People v. Clark (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 709 , 714-715 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ].) It follows that the rule also applies to the fundamenta

2009"A trial court `must instruct even without request on the general principles of law relevant to and governing the case. [Citation.] That obligation includes instructions on all of the elements of a charged offense. [Citation.]' ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233 , 1311 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 , 850 P.2d 1 ].) `This rule applies to the "elements" of an "enhancement."' ( People v. Winslow (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 680 , 688 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 901 ], fn. omitted.)" ( People v. Clark (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 709 , 714-715 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 193 ].) It follows that the rule also applies to the fundamenta