instruction or one particular instruction in California

2021The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.’ [Citation.] We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from the entire charge of the court, not from considering only parts of an instruction or one particular instruction.” (People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13 .) “ ‘Errors in jury instructions are questions of law, which we review de novo.’ ” (People v. Fenderson (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 625, 642 .) A defendant’s failure to object to an alleged instructional error results in a forf

2021The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.’ [Citation.] We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from the entire charge of the court, not from considering only parts of an instruction or one particular instruction.” (People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13 .) “ ‘Errors in jury instructions are questions of law, which we review de novo.’ ” (People v. Fenderson (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 625, 642 .) A defendant’s failure to object to an alleged instructional error results in a forf

2021Included within this duty is the ‘. . . obligation to instruct on defenses, . . . and on the relationship of these defenses to the elements of the charged offense . . .’ where ‘. . . it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense.’ ” (People v. Stewart (1976) 16 Cal.3d 133, 140 .) “The independent or de novo standard of review is applicable in assessing whether instructions correctly state the law [citations.]” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from

2021Included within this duty is the ‘. . . obligation to instruct on defenses, . . . and on the relationship of these defenses to the elements of the charged offense . . .’ where ‘. . . it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense.’ ” (People v. Stewart (1976) 16 Cal.3d 133, 140 .) “The independent or de novo standard of review is applicable in assessing whether instructions correctly state the law [citations.]” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from

2021There is no instructional error when the record contains substantial evidence in support of a guilty verdict on the basis of the challenged theory.” (People v. Jantz (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1283, 1290 .) “ ‘Errors in jury instructions are questions of law, which we review de novo.’ ” (People v. Fenderson (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 625, 642 .) Tapia makes two related, yet distinct, claims regarding the trial court’s alleged error in declining to modify CALCRIM No. 3146.

2021Section 600, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part, “Any person who willfully and maliciously and with no legal justification strikes, beats, kicks, cuts, stabs, shoots with a firearm, administers any poison or other harmful or stupefying substance to, or throws, hurls, or projects at, or places any rock, object, or other substance which is used in such a manner as to be capable of producing injury and likely to produce injury, on or in the path of, a horse being used by, or a dog under the supervision of, a peace officer in the discharge or attempted discharge of his or her duties, or a

2020A permissive inference “leaves the trier of fact free to credit or reject the inference and does not shift the burden of proof.” (County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 157 .) Consequently, “[i]nstruction on an entirely permissive inference is invalid as a matter of due process only if there is no rational way the jury could draw the permitted inference.” (People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1243-1244 .) 9 Defendant’s reliance on Turner v. Marshall, supra, 63 F.3d at p. 820 , a case concerning inconsistent statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt, is of no help to defendant

2020A permissive inference “leaves the trier of fact free to credit or reject the inference and does not shift the burden of proof.” (County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 157 .) Consequently, “[i]nstruction on an entirely permissive inference is invalid as a matter of due process only if there is no rational way the jury could draw the permitted inference.” (People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1243-1244 .) 9 Defendant’s reliance on Turner v. Marshall, supra, 63 F.3d at p. 820 , a case concerning inconsistent statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt, is of no help to defendant

2020A permissive inference “leaves the trier of fact free to credit or reject the inference and does not shift the burden of proof.” (County Court v. Allen (1979) 442 U.S. 140, 157 .) Consequently, “[i]nstruction on an entirely permissive inference is invalid as a matter of due process only if there is no rational way the jury could draw the permitted inference.” (People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1243-1244 .) 9 Defendant’s reliance on Turner v. Marshall, supra, 63 F.3d at p. 820 , a case concerning inconsistent statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt, is of no help to defendant

2016(People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 217 .) To determine whether an instruction is correct, we review “the entire charge of the court, not . . . considering only parts of an instruction or one particular instruction.” (People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13 .) The court properly instructed the jury with respect to the prosecution’s required proof of lack of consent on each of the crimes of which appellant was convicted7 and also defined consent for purposes of kidnapping and forcible penetration as “positive cooperation in an act or attitude as an exercise of free will” using CALJIC

2016Appellant did not ask the court to give, and the court did not give sua sponte, the portion 6 Appellant’s reliance on People v. Matian (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 480 , as suggesting menace requires use of a deadly weapon or verbal threats is misplaced.

2016The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.’ [Citation.] We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from the entire charge of the court, not from considering only parts of an instruction or one particular instruction. [Citation.] The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole. [Citation.] Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are ‘“‘“intelligent persons and capable of understandi

2016(Maurer, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) On this standard, the inquiry “is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 (Sullivan); see also People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 515 (Flood).) Before turning to the merits of defendant’s claim of error, we note the People’s contention that defendant forfeited the claim.

2015(See, e.g., Aguilar, supra, 16 Cal.4th at pp. 1028-1029.) We conclude the instruction adequately informs the jury of the two categories of deadly weapons and there is no reasonable likelihood the jury interpreted the instruction in a manner that misdescribed the elements of the offense.

2014(See People v. Young (2005) 34 5 Cal.4th 1149 , 1202-1203.) 5 During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial court asking for “exact language describing definitions of 1st degree and 2nd degree murder.” After consulting 12 Instructions on Aiding and Abetting With Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine Defendant also claims the jury instructions (those cited above in conjunction with CALCRIM No. 403) were prejudicially erroneous with regard to the prosecutor’s theory that the charged crimes were the natural and probable consequences of uncharged crimes that defendant aided and abet