wording of a jury instruction in California

2026(People v. Lewis (2023) 14 Cal.5th 876 , 900 (Lewis); People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327 , 382 (Thomas).) Thus, an “ ‘appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.’ ” (Lewis, supra, at p. 900; People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) If a defendant contends that an instruction misstates the law, the reviewing court must view 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 inst

2026(People v. Lewis (2023) 14 Cal.5th 876 , 900 (Lewis); People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327 , 382 (Thomas).) Thus, an “ ‘appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.’ ” (Lewis, supra, at p. 900; People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) If a defendant contends that an instruction misstates the law, the reviewing court must view 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 inst

2025“An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (O’Dell, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at p. 1574 .) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of [] a particular instruction.’ ” (People v. Delgado (2017) 2 Cal.5th 544 , 573– 574.) “We look to the instructions as a whole and the entire record of the trial, including the arguments of counsel.” (People v. Lopez (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 698, 708 (Lopez).) 4 As defendant acknowledges, CALCRI

2022(People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1311 , overruled on another ground in People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 831 (Merritt).) “An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. O’Dell (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1574 (O’Dell).) “In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys.

2021(People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 (Brooks).) “Even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly.” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 (Castillo); accord, People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949 [while no specific jury instruction is ever required, the 17 trial court has a duty to ensure that the instructions given “provide a complete and accurate statement of the law”].) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of

2021(People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 (Brooks).) “Even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly.” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 (Castillo); accord, People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949 [while no specific jury instruction is ever required, the 17 trial court has a duty to ensure that the instructions given “provide a complete and accurate statement of the law”].) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of

2021(People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 (Brooks).) “Even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly.” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 (Castillo); accord, People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949 [while no specific jury instruction is ever required, the 17 trial court has a duty to ensure that the instructions given “provide a complete and accurate statement of the law”].) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of

2021(People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 (Brooks).) “Even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly.” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 (Castillo); accord, People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949 [while no specific jury instruction is ever required, the 17 trial court has a duty to ensure that the instructions given “provide a complete and accurate statement of the law”].) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of

2021(People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 (Brooks).) “Even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly.” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 (Castillo); accord, People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949 [while no specific jury instruction is ever required, the 17 trial court has a duty to ensure that the instructions given “provide a complete and accurate statement of the law”].) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of

2021(People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 (Brooks).) “Even if the court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on a particular legal point, when it does choose to instruct, it must do so correctly.” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1015 (Castillo); accord, People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949 [while no specific jury instruction is ever required, the 17 trial court has a duty to ensure that the instructions given “provide a complete and accurate statement of the law”].) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of

2019Analysis A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. ( People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158 , 1210, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 .) An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court's instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. ( Estelle v. McGuire (19

2019Analysis A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. ( People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158 , 1210, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 .) An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court's instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. ( Estelle v. McGuire (19

2019Analysis A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. ( People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158 , 1210, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 .) An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court's instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. ( Estelle v. McGuire (19

2019Analysis A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. ( People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158 , 1210, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 .) An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 218, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 .) In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court's instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. ( Estelle v. McGuire (19

2023(People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 419 ; People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) “An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. [Citations.] The challenged instruction is viewed ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether the

2022Applicable law For claims of instructional error, “[a]n appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) Further, the reviewing court inquires “ ‘ “ ‘ “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 (Castaneda); People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 [“ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to err

2026However, we conclude the instructional error was harmless and therefore affirm. 5 A. Standard of Review “An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) “Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 (Ramos).) “In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and th

2026(People v. Anderson (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 919, 927 ; see § 1259.) “ ‘Ascertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the 20 defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim–at least to the extent of ascertaining whether the asserted error would result in prejudice if error it was.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1087 .) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [C

2016(See, e.g., People v. Livingston (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1145, 1165 .) In any event, defendant’s argument fails on the merits because neither instruction was erroneous or prejudicial. “ ‘An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.’ [Citation.] ‘ “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Acosta (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 108, 119 .) Jury instructions are flaw

2015Therefore, Crespo forfeited his claim of instructional error by failing to request a clarifying instruction. 6 II " 'An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.' [Citation] ' " '[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.' " ' [Citation.] Taking into account the instructions as a whole and the trial record, we 'determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury

2015“An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo . . .” (People v. O’Dell (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1574 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 116 ]) and determines whether “the instructions are complete and correctly state the law” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 254 ]). *289 “Both simple kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping (except kidnapping for ransom or extortion) have an asportation element. [Citation.] But the . . . asportation element of simple kidnapping is not the same as that for aggravated kidnapping.” (Bell, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 435 .

2015“An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo . . .” (People v. O’Dell (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1574 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 116 ]) and determines whether “the instructions are complete and correctly state the law” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 254 ]). *289 “Both simple kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping (except kidnapping for ransom or extortion) have an asportation element. [Citation.] But the . . . asportation element of simple kidnapping is not the same as that for aggravated kidnapping.” (Bell, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 435 .

2026The Initial Instructions to the Jury Were Erroneous “All criminal defendants have the right to ‘a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824 .) Thus, “[t]he trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.” (Ibid.) “A claim of instructional error is reviewed de novo. [Citation.] An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the

2022Applicable Law “The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on all essential elements of a charged offense. [Citation.] . . . [Citation.] All criminal defendants have the right to ‘a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 824 .) “An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must co

2023(People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 419 ; People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) “An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. [Citations.] The challenged instruction is viewed ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether the

2022Applicable law For claims of instructional error, “[a]n appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) Further, the reviewing court inquires “ ‘ “ ‘ “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 (Castaneda); People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 [“ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to err

2025Code, § 1259.) “Because [Campos’s] contention is that the instructions caused him to be convicted under an invalid legal theory, this contention need not be preserved by 16 objection in order to be considered on appeal.” (People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689 , 710 (Powell); see People v. Valdez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 82, 151 .) In reviewing a claim of instructional error, we review the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.

2025Code, § 1259.) “Because [Shannon’s] contention is that the instructions caused him to be convicted under an invalid legal theory, this contention need not be preserved by objection in order to be considered on appeal.” (Powell, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 710; see People v. Valdez, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 151 .) In reviewing a claim of instructional error, we review the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.

2022Applicable law For claims of instructional error, “[a]n appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) Further, the reviewing court inquires “ ‘ “ ‘ “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 (Castaneda); People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 [“ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to err

2022Applicable law For claims of instructional error, “[a]n appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) Further, the reviewing court inquires “ ‘ “ ‘ “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 (Castaneda); People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 [“ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to err

2022Applicable law For claims of instructional error, “[a]n appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) Further, the reviewing court inquires “ ‘ “ ‘ “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 (Castaneda); People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 [“ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to err

2022Applicable law For claims of instructional error, “[a]n appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) Further, the reviewing court inquires “ ‘ “ ‘ “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 (Castaneda); People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 [“ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to err

2026A Jury Instruction Legal Standards Trial courts have a duty to sua sponte instruct “ ‘on those general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts before the court and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.’ ” (People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 143 .) On appeal, we review “ ‘the wording of a jury instruction de novo’ ” and “determine[] whether ‘the instructions are complete and correctly state the law.’ ” (People v. Bell (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 428, 435 .) We examine the entire charge of the court to determine whether the instructions are adequate (Peo

2022(People v. Michaels (2002) 28 Cal.4th 486, 529-530 .) “A ‘criminal defendant is entitled to adequate instructions on the defense theory of the case’ if supported by the law and evidence. [Citation.]” (People v. Bell (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 428, 434 .) On appeal, we review the wording of a jury instruction de novo and determine whether the instructions are complete and correctly state the law.

2025(People v. Lewis (2023) 14 Cal.5th 876 , 900 (Lewis); People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327 , 382 (Thomas).) Thus, an “ ‘appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.’ ” (Lewis, at p. 900; People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 (Mitchell).) If a defendant contends that an instruction misstates the law, the reviewing court “ ‘must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instruction caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution.’ ” (Lewis, at p. 900;

2025(People v. Mani (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 343 , 377; People v. Quinonez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 457 , 465.) “ ‘Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (Thomas, at p. 382; quoting People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852 .) 4. 2.

2023(People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 419 ; People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) “An appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law. [Citation.] In reviewing a claim of instructional error, the court must consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the trial court’s instructions caused the jury to misapply the law in violation of the Constitution. [Citations.] The challenged instruction is viewed ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether the

2022Applicable law For claims of instructional error, “[a]n appellate court reviews the wording of a jury instruction de novo and assesses whether the instruction accurately states the law.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 579 .) Further, the reviewing court inquires “ ‘ “ ‘ “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 (Castaneda); People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 [“ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to err

2025(Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1 , 9–10.) Under the Chapman standard, a federal constitutional error requires reversal unless the People show the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; see also Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 475 .) 3.

2025(Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1 , 9–10.) Under the Chapman standard, a federal constitutional error requires reversal unless the People show the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ; see also Flood, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 475 .) 3.