defendant objects instruction in California

2023Ominsky did not request such an instruction, but “[t]he trial court has a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte on all lesser included offenses if there is substantial evidence from which a jury can reasonably conclude the defendant committed the lesser, uncharged offense, but not the greater. [Citations.] The duty exists even when the lesser included offense is inconsistent with the defendant’s own theory of the case and the defendant objects to the instruction. [Citations.] This instructional requirement ‘ “prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothi

2023Ominsky did not request such an instruction, but “[t]he trial court has a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte on all lesser included offenses if there is substantial evidence from which a jury can reasonably conclude the defendant committed the lesser, uncharged offense, but not the greater. [Citations.] The duty exists even when the lesser included offense is inconsistent with the defendant’s own theory of the case and the defendant objects to the instruction. [Citations.] This instructional requirement ‘ “prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothi

2015(People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239-240 .) The obligation to instruct on a lesser included offense arises sua sponte even if the defendant objects to the instruction for tactical reasons.

2015(People v. Smith (2013) 57 Cal.4th 232, 239-240 .) The obligation to instruct on a lesser included offense arises sua sponte even if the defendant objects to the instruction for tactical reasons.

2025(People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 463 ; People v. Chestra (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1121 ; People v. Gutierrez (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 704, 709, fn. 1 .) In any event, we agree with the People that the record contains insufficient evidence to support an instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion. “‘The heat of passion requirement for manslaughter has both an objective and a subjective component.’ [Citation.] ‘The defendant must actually, subjectively, kill under the heat of passion.’ [Citation.] With respect to the objective component, ‘“this heat of passio

2025(People v. Nieves (2021) 11 Cal.5th 404, 463 ; People v. Chestra (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1121 ; People v. Gutierrez (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 704, 709, fn. 1 .) In any event, we agree with the People that the record contains insufficient evidence to support an instruction on attempted voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion. “‘The heat of passion requirement for manslaughter has both an objective and a subjective component.’ [Citation.] ‘The defendant must actually, subjectively, kill under the heat of passion.’ [Citation.] With respect to the objective component, ‘“this heat of passio

2016(People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201 ; People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 108 ; People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 951 .) The duty to instruct exists even when the lesser included offense is inconsistent with the defendant's own theory of the case and the defendant objects to the instruction.

2016(People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201 ; People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 108 ; People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 951 .) The duty to instruct exists even when the lesser included offense is inconsistent with the defendant's own theory of the case and the defendant objects to the instruction.

2016(People v. Barton (1995) 12 Cal.4th 186, 201 ; People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 108 ; People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 951 .) The duty to instruct exists even when the lesser included offense is inconsistent with the defendant's own theory of the case and the defendant objects to the instruction.

2016A. Lesser Included Offenses “A trial court must instruct the jury sua sponte on a lesser included offense only if there is substantial evidence, ‘ “that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive” ’ [citation], which, if accepted, ‘ “would absolve [the] defendant from guilt of the greater offense” [citation] but not the lesser’ [citation]. [Citations.]” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1218 , italics in original.) The duty exists even when the lesser included offense is inconsistent with the defendant’s own theory of the case and the defendant objects to the instruction.

2016(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142 , 154- 155 (Breverman); People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 115 .) “[T]he existence of ‘any evidence, no matter how weak’ will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury. [Citations.] ‘Substantial evidence’ in this context is ‘ “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could … conclude[]” ’ that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed. [C

2015(People v. Banks (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1113, 1160 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 391 ; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 155 (Breverman).) This instructional requirement “‘prevents either party, whether by design or inadvertence, from forcing an all-or-nothing choice between conviction of the stated offense on the one hand, or complete acquittal on the other.

2013(People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645 ; Breverman, supra, at p. 154 .) Thus, in a murder case, the trial court must instruct on imperfect self-defense, as a form of voluntary manslaughter, if there is substantial evidentiary support to support the theory. ( Breverman, supra, at p. 160 .) The trial court‟s sua sponte duty arises even if the defendant objects to the instruction and regardless of the defendant‟s theory of defense.

2013(People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1 , 25- 26.) The trial court’s sua sponte duty arises even if the defendant objects to the instruction and regardless of the defendant’s theory of defense.