Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 California opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2026While a court may well 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, such ‘pinpoint’ instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request.””’ ( Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 996– 997, citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117 .) The Supreme Court explained in People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616 , 674– 675 (Jennings), that “Generally, the claim that a homicide was committed through misfortune or by accident ‘am 2011“In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, 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. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 ].) That duty extends to “ ‘instructions on the defendant’s theory of the case, including instructions “as to defenses ‘ “that the defendant is relying on . . . , or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the cas | 2 | 2 |
People v. Andersongreen2 sentences2026While a court may well 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, such ‘pinpoint’ instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request.””’ ( Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 996– 997, citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117 .) The Supreme Court explained in People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616 , 674– 675 (Jennings), that “Generally, the claim that a homicide was committed through misfortune or by accident ‘am 2026As relevant to this particular assignment of error, the instruction is based on section 195, which provides, in the first part, that homicide is excusable in the following cases: “(1) When committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.” This language echoes that found in section 26, which defines the classes of persons not capable of committing a crime, including “[p]ersons who committed the act or made the omission charged through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was | 1 | 3 |
People v. Maddengreen2 sentences1988As the majority concedes, it is the general and fundamental rule that the jury must unanimously “agree upon the commission of the same act in order to convict a defendant of a charged offense. [Citations.] If the defendant is prosecuted for violation of a statute under which any one of several different acts could constitute the offense, the jury must be told that a verdict of guilty must be supported by a unanimous finding that one of the acts was committed. [Citation.]” (People v. Masten (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 579, 588 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 515 ].) “The law recognizes an exception to this rule wher 1988As the majority concedes, it is the general and fundamental rule that the jury must unanimously "agree upon the commission of the same act in order to convict a defendant of a charged offense. [Citations.] If the defendant is prosecuted for violation of a statute under which any one of several different acts could constitute the offense, the jury must be told that a verdict of guilty must be supported by a unanimous finding that one of the acts was committed. [Citation.]" ( People v. Masten (1982) 137 Cal. App.3d 579, 588 [ 187 Cal. Rptr. 515 ].) "The law recognizes an exception to this rule w | 1 | 2 |
Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc.green1 sentence2024(See Komarova v. National Credit Acceptance, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 324, 344-345 [discussing continuing violation doctrine].) Although not alleged in the operative complaint, Miyahara argues on appeal she could amend her complaint to allege she “continued to be harmed by Respondent’s refusal to correct the unlawful lien and, in fact, continues to be harmed, because she had to file for bankruptcy which has negatively impacted her credit and she can no longer obtain a low interest rate as a result.” Such allegations of a continuing harm, as opposed to a continuing violation, are insufficien | 1 | 1 |
People v. Buttramgreen1 sentence2015This exception, stated in rule 8.304(b)(4)(B) of the California Rules of Court, permits an appeal without a probable cause certificate if the appeal is based on “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity.” “[T]he critical inquiry is whether a challenge to the sentence is in substance a challenge to the validity of the plea, thus rendering the appeal subject to the requirements of section 1237.5. [Citation.]” (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76 , original italics (Panizzon); see also People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 781-782 (Buttram).) I | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2011“In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, 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. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 ].) That duty extends to “ ‘instructions on the defendant’s theory of the case, including instructions “as to defenses ‘ “that the defendant is relying on . . . , or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the cas 2011“In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, 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. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 , 224 P.3d 877 ].) That duty extends to “ ‘instructions on the defendant’s theory of the case, including instructions “as to defenses ‘ “that the defendant is relying on . . . , or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the cas | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mastenred2 sentences1988As the majority concedes, it is the general and fundamental rule that the jury must unanimously “agree upon the commission of the same act in order to convict a defendant of a charged offense. [Citations.] If the defendant is prosecuted for violation of a statute under which any one of several different acts could constitute the offense, the jury must be told that a verdict of guilty must be supported by a unanimous finding that one of the acts was committed. [Citation.]” (People v. Masten (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 579, 588 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 515 ].) “The law recognizes an exception to this rule wher 1988As the majority concedes, it is the general and fundamental rule that the jury must unanimously “agree upon the commission of the same act in order to convict a defendant of a charged offense. [Citations.] If the defendant is prosecuted for violation of a statute under which any one of several different acts could constitute the offense, the jury must be told that a verdict of guilty must be supported by a unanimous finding that one of the acts was committed. [Citation.]” (People v. Masten (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 579, 588 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 515 ].) “The law recognizes an exception to this rule wher | 1 | 1 |
People v. Heidemangreen2 sentences1982(People v. Heideman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 321, 333 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 349 ].) The law recognizes an exception to this rule where a series of acts forms part of one and the same transaction, and as a whole, constitutes but one and the same offense. 1982(People v. Heideman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 321, 333 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 349 ].) The law recognizes an exception to this rule where a series of acts forms part of one and the same transaction, and as a whole, constitutes but one and the same offense. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Motagreen2 sentences1982(People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 218 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ]; People v. Mota (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 227, 233 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 212 ].) This exception applies to those types of offenses which are continuous in nature, and can be comprised of multiple acts or a course of conduct over a period of time. 1982(People v. Madden (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 212, 218 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 897 ]; People v. Mota (1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 227, 233 [ 171 Cal.Rptr. 212 ].) This exception applies to those types of offenses which are continuous in nature, and can be comprised of multiple acts or a course of conduct over a period of time. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lawson
green
2 sentences2013While a court may well 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, such ‘pinpoint’ instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 996-997.) People v. Lawson (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 108 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 236 ] recently applied Anderson’s holding to a claim the trial court erred in failing to, sua sponte, instruct on mistake of fact. 2013While a court may well 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, such ‘pinpoint’ instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 996-997.) People v. Lawson (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 108 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 236 ] recently applied Anderson’s holding to a claim the trial court erred in failing to, sua sponte, instruct on mistake of fact. | 3 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Saille
green
2 sentences2026While a court may well 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, such ‘pinpoint’ instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request.””’ ( Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 996– 997, citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117 .) The Supreme Court explained in People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616 , 674– 675 (Jennings), that “Generally, the claim that a homicide was committed through misfortune or by accident ‘am 2026While a court may well 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, such ‘pinpoint’ instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request.””’ ( Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 996– 997, citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117 .) The Supreme Court explained in People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616 , 674– 675 (Jennings), that “Generally, the claim that a homicide was committed through misfortune or by accident ‘am | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Breverman
red
1 sentence2026While a court may well 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, such ‘pinpoint’ instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request.””’ ( Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 996– 997, citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117 .) The Supreme Court explained in People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616 , 674– 675 (Jennings), that “Generally, the claim that a homicide was committed through misfortune or by accident ‘am | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Jennings
green
1 sentence2026While a court may well 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, such ‘pinpoint’ instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request.””’ ( Anderson, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 996– 997, citing People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1117 .) The Supreme Court explained in People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616 , 674– 675 (Jennings), that “Generally, the claim that a homicide was committed through misfortune or by accident ‘am | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Panizzon
green
1 sentence2015This exception, stated in rule 8.304(b)(4)(B) of the California Rules of Court, permits an appeal without a probable cause certificate if the appeal is based on “[g]rounds that arose after entry of the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity.” “[T]he critical inquiry is whether a challenge to the sentence is in substance a challenge to the validity of the plea, thus rendering the appeal subject to the requirements of section 1237.5. [Citation.]” (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76 , original italics (Panizzon); see also People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 781-782 (Buttram).) I | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Cole
green
1 sentence2015“The purpose of section 1237.5 is practical and salutary: ‘to discourage and weed out frivolous or vexatious appeals challenging convictions following guilty and nolo contendere pleas,’ and to do so ‘ “before time and money is spent preparing the record and the briefs for consideration by the reviewing court.” ’ [Citation.] The requirements of section 1237.5 . . . must be strictly applied. [Citation.] The Supreme Court has disapproved the practice of applying the rule loosely in order to reach issues whose consideration would otherwise be precluded. [Citation.]” (People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.A | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Lloyd
green
1 sentence2001This exception, stated in the second paragraph of rule 31(d), permits an appeal without a probable cause certificate if the appeal “is based solely upon grounds (1) occurring after entry of the plea which do not challenge its validity or (2) involving a search or seizure, the validity of which was contested pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code.” It further provides, that “the appeal shall not be operative unless the notice of appeal states that it is based upon such grounds.” (See People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1096 ; People v. Lloyd, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 664 .) 4 In some | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Mendez
green
1 sentence2001This exception, stated in the second paragraph of rule 31(d), permits an appeal without a probable cause certificate if the appeal “is based solely upon grounds (1) occurring after entry of the plea which do not challenge its validity or (2) involving a search or seizure, the validity of which was contested pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code.” It further provides, that “the appeal shall not be operative unless the notice of appeal states that it is based upon such grounds.” (See People v. Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1096 ; People v. Lloyd, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 664 .) 4 In some | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Jimmy H. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1975At the stage of the proceedings where the juvenile court must determine a minor’s fitness to be treated as a juvenile, it can examine only what in fact exists—“the nature of the alleged crimes, the circumstances surrounding their commission . . . the minor’s past record and lack of rehabilitation . . . .” (Donald L. v. Superior Court, supra, 7 Cal.3d 592, 600 ) and the minor’s “amenability to treatment through the facilities available to the juvenile court, . . .” (Jimmy H. v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 709, 714 .) The law recognizes no doctrine of contributory fault on the part of the au | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Donald L. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1975At the stage of the proceedings where the juvenile court must determine a minor’s fitness to be treated as a juvenile, it can examine only what in fact exists—“the nature of the alleged crimes, the circumstances surrounding their commission . . . the minor’s past record and lack of rehabilitation . . . .” (Donald L. v. Superior Court, supra, 7 Cal.3d 592, 600 ) and the minor’s “amenability to treatment through the facilities available to the juvenile court, . . .” (Jimmy H. v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.3d 709, 714 .) The law recognizes no doctrine of contributory fault on the part of the au | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Francis
green
2 sentences1973Exclusive possession is not a requisite element of the offense (People v. Tharp, supra) and the law recognizes the doctrine of joint or constructive possession (People v. Francis, 71 Cal.2d 66 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 450 P.2d 591 ]). 1973Exclusive possession is not a requisite element of the offense (People v. Tharp, supra) and the law recognizes the doctrine of joint or constructive possession (People v. Francis, 71 Cal.2d 66 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 199 , 450 P.2d 591 ]). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.