pinpoint instruction in California

2025And we “see no reasonable likelihood that the jury would have construed this language in a voluntary manslaughter instruction to alter the requirement—plainly stated in CALCRIM No. 521—that first degree murder must be 26. deliberate and premedi[t]ated.” (People v. Ocegueda, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 559; see People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 880 [“In the absence of instructional errors such as were present in [People v. ]Valentine [(1946) 28 Cal.2d 121 ], the standard manslaughter instruction is not misleading, because the jury is told that premeditation and deliberation is the factor

2025(See People v. Jones, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 ; see People v. Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at pp. 878–879 [CALJIC No. 8.73, which relates evidence of provocation to specific legal issue of premeditation and deliberation is a “pinpoint instruction” that need not be given on court’s own motion].) And we cannot conclude defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request such a pinpoint instruction.

2025(People v. Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 996–998.) However, if evidence is presented which would support a theory of accident, the trial court might “‘“have a duty to give a ‘pinpoint’ instruction relating such evidence to the elements of the offense and to the jury’s duty to acquit if the evidence produces a reasonable doubt.”’” (Id. at pp. 996–997, quoting People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117 .) 6 Here, Keblis’s trial counsel did request a pinpoint instruction on accident, and we shall presume evidence was presented to support a theory that the assault on Jane Doe was accidental

2025Defendant’s proposed instruction was not a pinpoint instruction, which attempts to “relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or ‘pinpoint’ the crux of [his] case.” (People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 .) It was exactly the reverse.

2026You may not find the defendant guilty of <insert crime[s]> unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) acted with the required intent.” 5 Essentially, “the defense of accident . . . amounts to a claim that the defendant acted without forming the mental state necessary to make his or her actions a crime.” (People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 997 [cleaned up].) “A trial court’s responsibility to instruct on [the defense of] accident therefore generally extends no further than the obligation to provide, upon request, a pinpoint instruction relating the evidence to the m

2025(People v. Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 996–998.) However, if evidence is presented which would support a theory of accident, the trial court might “‘“have a duty to give a ‘pinpoint’ instruction relating such evidence to the elements of the offense and to the jury’s duty to acquit if the evidence produces a reasonable doubt.”’” (Id. at pp. 996–997, quoting People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117 .) 6 Here, Keblis’s trial counsel did request a pinpoint instruction on accident, and we shall presume evidence was presented to support a theory that the assault on Jane Doe was accidental

2025(People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 .) Argumentative instructions “ ‘select[ ] certain material facts, or those which are deemed to be material, and endeavor[ ] to force the court to indicate an opinion favorable to the defendant as to the effect of such facts, by incorporating them into instructions containing a correct principle of law.’ ” (People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1135 .) We review the refusal to give a pinpoint instruction de novo.

2025Relevant Legal Principles “ ‘Under appropriate circumstances, “a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 220 .) Pinpoint instructions “ ‘relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or “pinpoint” the crux of a defendant’s case.’ ” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824 .) “A defendant is entitled to a pinpoint instruction, upon request, only when appropriate.” (Ibid.; People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 498 (Mora and Rangel) [“A proper pinpoint in

2024(People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826 , 886–887; People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394, 422 [“failure to give a pinpoint instruction . . . is judged as state law error that is prejudicial only where there is a reasonable probability of a more favorable result”].) The denial of a pinpoint instruction has been held harmless under Watson where the instructions that were given did not preclude findings consistent with the proposed pinpoint instruction’s theory and where defense counsel fully explained the point to the jury.

2023(People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826 , 886–887; People v. Sandoval (2015) 62 Cal.4th 394 , 421–422 [“failure to give a pinpoint instruction . . . is judged as state law error that is prejudicial only where there is reasonable probability of a more favorable result”].) The denial of a pinpoint instruction is harmless under Watson where the instructions that were given do not preclude findings consistent with the proposed pinpoint instruction's theory and where the defense counsel fully argued the point to the jury.

2025“Provocation in this context is not a ‘defense’ but merely a theory of reasonable doubt as to required elements of first degree murder. [Citation.] Because an instruction on provocation relates to the legal elements of premeditation and deliberation, it is a ‘“pinpoint instruction”’ that a court need not give on its own motion.” (People v. Ocegueda (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 548 , 557; accord, People v. Hernandez, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1333 [“an instruction on provocation for second degree murder is a pinpoint instruction that need not be given sua sponte by the trial court”].) And, “CALCRIM

2025“Provocation in this context is not a ‘defense’ but merely a theory of reasonable doubt as to required elements of first degree murder. [Citation.] Because an instruction on provocation relates to the legal elements of premeditation and deliberation, it is a ‘“pinpoint instruction”’ that a court need not give on its own motion.” (People v. Ocegueda (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 548 , 557; accord, People v. Hernandez, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1333 [“an instruction on provocation for second degree murder is a pinpoint instruction that need not be given sua sponte by the trial court”].) And, “CALCRIM

2026(People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 328-329 .) “‘[A] trial judge must only give those instructions which are supported by substantial evidence,’ and ‘has the authority to refuse requested instructions on a defense theory for which there is no supporting evidence.’” (People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 823 .) Appellant’s failure to request a pinpoint instruction on duress forfeits her claim on appeal.

2023(Strickland, at p. 698.) “We need not inquire into why counsel failed to request an additional pinpoint instruction” where “the court fully apprised the jury of the law applicable to defendant’s mental state defenses, and no additional instruction was necessary.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 987 .) “We also consider the instructions as a whole, the jury’s findings, and the closing arguments of counsel.” (People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 831 (Larsen).) Defendant has not established prejudice.

2025He must demonstrate “both that trial counsel failed to act in a manner to be expected of reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent advocates, and that it is reasonably probable a more favorable determination would have resulted in the absence of counsel’s failings.” (People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 623 , citing Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668 , 687–696 (Strickland).) We conclude Reed has not met his burden on appeal. 16 A. Defense Counsel Did Not Render Deficient Performance By Not Requesting a Pinpoint Instruction on Implied Malice Reed contends his trial counsel wa

2025It’s not just possible, it’s highly likely.” (Italics added.) In any event, even if the failure to request the pinpoint instruction “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing norms” (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 ), Reed has not established prejudice (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 694 ).

2025“Provocation in this context is not a ‘defense’ but merely a theory of reasonable doubt as to required elements of first degree murder. [Citation.] Because an instruction on provocation relates to the legal elements of premeditation and deliberation, it is a ‘“pinpoint instruction”’ that a court need not give on its own motion.” (People v. Ocegueda (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 548 , 557; accord, People v. Hernandez, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1333 [“an instruction on provocation for second degree murder is a pinpoint instruction that need not be given sua sponte by the trial court”].) And, “CALCRIM

2025“Provocation in this context is not a ‘defense’ but merely a theory of reasonable doubt as to required elements of first degree murder. [Citation.] Because an instruction on provocation relates to the legal elements of premeditation and deliberation, it is a ‘“pinpoint instruction”’ that a court need not give on its own motion.” (People v. Ocegueda (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 548 , 557; accord, People v. Hernandez, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1333 [“an instruction on provocation for second degree murder is a pinpoint instruction that need not be given sua sponte by the trial court”].) And, “CALCRIM

2025Even if counsel had requested it, the court would have properly declined to instruct on duress. “[A] trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it . . . is not supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 558 .) For the court to instruct on duress, there must be substantial evidence of “a reasonable belief that threats to the defendant’s life . . . are both imminent and immediate at the time the crime is committed.” (Coffman, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 100 .) There was scant evidence supporting the duress pinpoint instruction.

2021(People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199, fn. 3 .) Thus, “[a] trial court’s responsibility to instruct on accident ... generally extends no further than the obligation to provide, upon request, a pinpoint instruction relating the evidence to the mental element required for the charged crime.” (Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 997 .) However, “ ‘a trial court need not give a pinpoint instruction if it is argumentative [citation], merely duplicates other instructions [citation], or is not supported by substantial evidence [citation].’ ” (People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 99

2025(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1142 (Gutierrez).) But the Supreme Court has held that the trial court 17 may properly reject a pinpoint instruction “if it is duplicative or potentially confusing.” (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1276 (Gonzales) [affirming trial court’s denial of defendant’s proposed pinpoint instruction where instruction was duplicative and would have required the jury to parse different formulations]; People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 499 (Mora and Rangel) [trial court did not err by denying defendant’s requested instruction as duplicat

2024(People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 497 ; see also People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1297 .) “The failure to instruct the jury on an appropriate pinpoint instruction on the defense’s theory of the case is reviewed for harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 . [Citations.]” (People v. Zemek (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 313 , 347.) However, if the trial court’s error “amounted to more than a failure to give a pinpoint instruction” because the instruction provided was “incomplete and misleading” and “amounted to misinstruction on an element of the offense,”

2026(People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 (Mitchell); People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) We examine 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 .) Moreover, under “ ‘appropriate circumstances’ a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case . . . .” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 558 .) “But a tr

2025And, to the extent the defendant is arguing the trial court should have provided a more specific instruction on the issue of causation, such an instruction would be considered a pinpoint instruction “that the trial court is required to give, if at all, only upon request.” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 556 ; see generally People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 592 [“Pinpoint instructions ‘relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or “pinpoint” the crux of a defendant’s case, such as mistaken identification or alibi. [Citation.] They are required to be given upon request w

2025The legal principles we apply are these. “[I]t is well settled that ‘ “ ‘evidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant’s guilt: there must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.’ [Citation.] . . . [S]uch [third party culpability] evidence is subject to exclusion under Evidence Code section 352.” ’ ” (People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 496 (Hartsch).) “ ‘ “[I]n appropriate circumstances” a trial court may be required t

2025The legal principles we apply are these. “[I]t is well settled that ‘ “ ‘evidence of mere motive or opportunity to commit the crime in another person, without more, will not suffice to raise a reasonable doubt about a defendant’s guilt: there must be direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual perpetration of the crime.’ [Citation.] . . . [S]uch [third party culpability] evidence is subject to exclusion under Evidence Code section 352.” ’ ” (People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 496 (Hartsch).) “ ‘ “[I]n appropriate circumstances” a trial court may be required t

2026(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) The Defendant did not request the pinpoint instruction on accident as a justification for the homicide, and, as a pinpoint instruction, the court was under no obligation to give the instruction absent a request, or absent substantial evidence to support the theory. 4.

2024(People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 497 ; see also People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1297 .) “The failure to instruct the jury on an appropriate pinpoint instruction on the defense’s theory of the case is reviewed for harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 . [Citations.]” (People v. Zemek (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 313 , 347.) However, if the trial court’s error “amounted to more than a failure to give a pinpoint instruction” because the instruction provided was “incomplete and misleading” and “amounted to misinstruction on an element of the offense,”

2022(Ibid.; People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 674-675 ; CALCRIM No. 3404.) Although a trial court may, upon request, give a pinpoint instruction on accident when there is evidence supporting the theory, it does not have a sua sponte duty to instruct on accident where it has instructed on the mental element of the crime and the defendant’s theory of accident is an attempt to negate the intent element of the offense.

2021(People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 .) Evidence that has been proffered in an attempt to raise a doubt on an element of a crime which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt may, but only upon request, justify the giving of a pinpoint instruction that “does not involve a ‘general principle of law’ as that term is used 12 in the cases that have imposed a sua sponte duty of instruction on the trial court.” (Id. at p. 1120; see also, People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 674-675 .) Pinpoint instructions relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or “‘pinpoint’

2025(People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 .) Argumentative instructions “ ‘select[ ] certain material facts, or those which are deemed to be material, and endeavor[ ] to force the court to indicate an opinion favorable to the defendant as to the effect of such facts, by incorporating them into instructions containing a correct principle of law.’ ” (People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1135 .) We review the refusal to give a pinpoint instruction de novo.

2022Defendant primarily relies on People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126 , a case that does not consider a consciousness of guilt instruction but rather a pinpoint instruction about a witness’s ability to identify a person.

2025Analysis “ ‘[T]he trial court is required to instruct the jury on the general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the evidence and that are necessary to the jury’s understanding of the case.’ ” (People v. Morales (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 978 , 990.) “ ‘ “[A] defendant has a right to an instruction that pinpoints the theory of the defense ….” ’ ” (People v. Bivert (2011) 52 Cal.4th 96, 120 .) Even upon request by the defense, however, a court is only required to give a pinpoint instruction “if it is supported 7. by substantial evidence.” (People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1

2024(See People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 214 [a pinpoint instruction must be given only if supported by substantial evidence].) If that is so, Reed’s trial counsel’s performance was not deficient for failing to object 16 to the instructions as given, nor can Reed establish prejudice for failing to request the pinpoint instruction.

2024We need not settle this argument, “because any error here was harmless even under the more stringent Chapman standard.” (People v. Franklin (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 881, 891 (Franklin).) In People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 571 (Wharton), the California Supreme Court affirmed a first degree murder conviction where the trial court erred in declining to provide a pinpoint instruction on provocation and heat of passion.

2022(People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 570 (Wharton).) Such an instruction is one which “pinpoints the evidence in the case in the light of defendant’s theory of defense and instructs the jury that the People bear the burden of ultimate persuasion on the issue which the instruction pinpoints.” (People v. Brady (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 124, 135 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1040 .) A court is not required to give a pinpoint instruction that is argumentative, duplicative, or not supported by the evidence.

2024(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) We conclude the trial court’s not giving the pinpoint instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2024(People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 497 ; see also People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1297 .) “The failure to instruct the jury on an appropriate pinpoint instruction on the defense’s theory of the case is reviewed for harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 . [Citations.]” (People v. Zemek (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 313 , 347.) However, if the trial court’s error “amounted to more than a failure to give a pinpoint instruction” because the instruction provided was “incomplete and misleading” and “amounted to misinstruction on an element of the offense,”

2023(See People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 [a pinpoint instruction highlights evidence supporting the defendant’s theory of a case]; People v. Garvin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 484, 488 [“‘[i]f an instruction relates “particular facts to the elements of the offense charged,” it is a pinpoint instruction’”; instruction on the effect of antecedent threats in case involving self-defense is a pinpoint instruction]; see also Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 505 [citing Garvin to explain when optional material in CALCRIM No. 505 is required].) A pinpoint instruction must be given on request 13 unless it is a

2023(See People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 [a pinpoint instruction highlights evidence supporting the defendant’s theory of a case]; People v. Garvin (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 484, 488 [“‘[i]f an instruction relates “particular facts to the elements of the offense charged,” it is a pinpoint instruction’”; instruction on the effect of antecedent threats in case involving self-defense is a pinpoint instruction]; see also Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 505 [citing Garvin to explain when optional material in CALCRIM No. 505 is required].) A pinpoint instruction must be given on request 13 unless it is a

2014(People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 650 ; People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 90 .) An instruction on voluntary intoxication is deemed a pinpoint instruction which courts are required to give on request.

2013(See People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 824 (Larsen) [“CALCRIM No. 3428 is a pinpoint instruction that must be given only if requested by the defendant, and only if substantial evidence supports the defense theory that defendant’s mental disease or disorder affected the formation of the relevant intent or mental state.”]; accord, People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 ; People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 91 [holding the same as to CALJIC No. 3.32, the equivalent of CALCRIM No. 3428].) As defendant correctly states, pinpoint instructions need only be given if specifically req

2026(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1145 .) Machleit contends that the trial court “deprived [her] of her right to have the jury instructed on her defense to the charge of murder” 18 because it rejected a pinpoint instruction.

2026(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1145 .) Machleit contends that the trial court “deprived [her] of her right to have the jury instructed on her defense to the charge of murder” 18 because it rejected a pinpoint instruction.

2026Legal Principles A trial court’s duty to instruct may encompass providing, upon request, “legally correct and factually warranted pinpoint instructions designed to elaborate and clarify other instructions . . . .” (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 362 .) When considering whether to give a specific pinpoint instruction, the trial court should consider whether the instruction incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, potentially confusing, or is not supported by substantial evidence.

2024(People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) In general, “ ‘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. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327 , 385; People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 .) This may include providing, upon request, “legally correct and factually warranted pinpoint instructions designed to elaborate and clarify other instructions ….” (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 362 (Hughes).) When considering whether to give a specific pinpoint instructio

2025Relevant Legal Principles “ ‘Under appropriate circumstances, “a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Whisenhunt (2008) 44 Cal.4th 174, 220 .) Pinpoint instructions “ ‘relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or “pinpoint” the crux of a defendant’s case.’ ” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824 .) “A defendant is entitled to a pinpoint instruction, upon request, only when appropriate.” (Ibid.; People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 498 (Mora and Rangel) [“A proper pinpoint in

2025(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1142 (Gutierrez).) But the Supreme Court has held that the trial court 17 may properly reject a pinpoint instruction “if it is duplicative or potentially confusing.” (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1276 (Gonzales) [affirming trial court’s denial of defendant’s proposed pinpoint instruction where instruction was duplicative and would have required the jury to parse different formulations]; People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 499 (Mora and Rangel) [trial court did not err by denying defendant’s requested instruction as duplicat

2026CALCRIM No. 522, is a pinpoint instruction to which a defendant is entitled only upon request where evidence supports the theory.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 328 .) “The trial court is not required to give such an instruction sua sponte.” (Ibid.) Here, Delgado did not ask the trial court to deliver CALCRIM No. 522.

2026We conclude that because Delgado did not request a pinpoint instruction on provocation, the trial court did not err by failing to deliver one. 16 (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 385 [“the trial court here did not err by failing to provide an instruction on provocation when one was not requested by defendant at trial”]; Rivera, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 329 [“[defendant] did not make a request for an instruction on provocation.

2026(People v. Bradley (1945) 71 Cal.App.2d 114, 119 (Bradley).) It merely disputes “ ‘that the defendant was personally present at the place when the offense was committed.’ ” (Ibid.) It “cannot be considered by itself, but must be considered in connection with all other evidence in the case.” (People v. Branch (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 688, 691 .) When “ ‘instructions relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or “pinpoint” the crux of a defendant’s case, such as mistaken identification or alibi[,] . . . [t]hey are required to be given upon request when there is evidence supportive of the

2026Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Caelle Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Pinpoint jury instructions “‘relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or “pinpoint” the crux of a defendant’s case.’” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824 .) Generally, a trial court is required to grant a defendant’s request for a pinpoint instruction.

2026(People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 (Mitchell); People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) We examine 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 .) Moreover, under “ ‘appropriate circumstances’ a trial court may be required to give a requested jury instruction that pinpoints a defense theory of the case . . . .” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 558 .) “But a tr

2024Legal Principles and Standard of Review “A defendant is entitled to a pinpoint instruction, upon request, only when appropriate. [Citation.] ‘Such instructions relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or “pinpoint” the crux of a defendant’s case, such as mistaken identification or alibi. [Citation.] They are required to be given upon request when there is evidence supportive of the theory, but they are not required to be given sua sponte.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824 .) “[A] trial court may properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if