otherwise correct instruction in California

2026Appellants contend that CALCRIM No. 521 and CALCRIM No. 526 provide the jury with an incorrect definition of “premeditation,” because the pattern instructions do not inform the jury that premeditation requires “substantially more reflection” than the intent required for second degree murder. “‘“A trial court has a duty to instruct the jury ‘sua sponte on general principles which are closely and openly connected with the facts before the court.’”’” (People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629 , 677, quoting People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 13 Cal.4th 789 , 824.) However, the court has no duty to “revi

2026Generally, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) However, “that rule [of forfeiture] does not apply when . . . the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 .) 11 correctly state the law” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ), and we concl

2026Generally, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) However, “that rule [of forfeiture] does not apply when . . . the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 .) 11 correctly state the law” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ), and we concl

2025Jury Instruction Requirements and Standard of Review “ ‘The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the charged offense.’ ” (People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625 , 660 (Howard).) “Nevertheless, ‘[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a 29 request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.’ ” (Ibid.; see also People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002 , 1012–1013 (Hudson).) “ ‘ ‘A

2023(See People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 361 [“Even if proper, … pinpoint instructions ‘are not required to be given sua sponte’”]; People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824 [defendant is entitled to pinpoint instructions, upon request, only when appropriate; but such instructions “‘are not required to be given sua sponte’”]; accord, People v. Whalen (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1 , 81–82 [“‘A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction

2015(People v. Hanna (1939) 36 Cal.App.2d 333, 337 .) Consistent with this principle and CALJIC No. 2.20, the jury was instructed that “[e]very person who testifies under oath or affirmation is a witness” and that it may consider “[t]he existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive” and “[t]he attitude of the witness toward this action or toward the giving of testimony.” “ ‘A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction fo

2014“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 535 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ]), and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal (People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 454 , 180 P.3d 224 ]; People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 ]).” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) Defendant’s trial counsel did not ask the trial court to speci

2013(People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163-1165 (Samaniego).) Respondent contends that defendant has forfeited the issue, as the “failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal. [Citations.]” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) 10 In fact, the trial court provided the suggested clarification by giving the Spring 2010 revision of CALJIC No. 3.00, which modified the instruction to reflect the holding in McCoy and the clarification suggested in Samaniego.

2025“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an 30 accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal [citations].” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 ; see also People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 838, 877 [where the instruction for robbery was legally correct, the defendant’s failure to request clarifying language forfeits the issue on appeal].) In sum, we find no basis for relief from instructional error.

2021“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 ; see also People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838 , 873–874, 901; People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 326 .) Armas characterizes his claim as one challenging CALCRIM No. 3472 as an incorrect statement of law under the facts.

2014“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 535 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ]), and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal (People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 454 , 180 P.3d 224 ]; People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 ]).” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) Defendant’s trial counsel did not ask the trial court to speci

2014“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 535 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ]), and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal (People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 454 , 180 P.3d 224 ]; People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 ]).” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) Defendant’s trial counsel did not ask the trial court to speci

2014“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 535 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ]), and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal (People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 454 , 180 P.3d 224 ]; People v. Samaniego (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1163 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 ]).” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) Defendant’s trial counsel did not ask the trial court to speci

2014(People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 535 ), and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.

2025(See People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 336 [“‘A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.’”]; People v. Howard, supra, 104 Cal.App.5th at p. 660 [same].) Even if not forfeited, however, the argument lacks merit.

2025Counsel also did not request the court to 33 modify the instruction. “ ‘A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.’ ” (People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 336 , italics added.) Our determination of whether CALCRIM No. 851 is an accurate statement of the law effectively addresses defendant’s arguments on its merits.

2025Appellant’s counsel said, “The defense position is just going to be to refer them back to the instructions to look at [CALCRIM No.] 572.” “The doctrine of 9 invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an [assumed] error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error.’” (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 .) Furthermore, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purp

2023Appellant’s counsel said, “The defense position is just going to be to refer them back to the instructions to look at [Calcrim No.] 572.” “The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from asserting an error when ‘his own conduct induces the commission of error.’” (People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 549, fn. 3 .) Furthermore, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appe

2024(People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 .) However, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 (Lee); People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 757 [where “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instructio

2024Preponderance Instruction “A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal [citations].” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 (Lee); People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 757 [where “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to hav

2024(See Dearborne, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 262 [“‘A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.’”]; accord, Middleton, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 772.) In any event, any instructional error would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

2023(Dearborne, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 262 [“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.”].) We reach the same conclusion here: There was no instructional error.

2023(See People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 969 [“‘[a] party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language’”]; People v. Lee, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 638 [“[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal”].) Irrespective, as discusse

2016(See People v. Jones (2013) 57 Cal.4th 899, 969 [“‘[a] party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language’”]; People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 [“[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal”]; People v. Jones (2014) 7 Cit

2022(People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 875, fn. 11 , overruled on another ground in People v. Hardy (2018) 5 Cal.5th 56 , 103–104.) Here, the record does not reflect defendant objected to CALCRIM No. 1193 or requested an instruction modification.

2021(People v. Capistrano (2014) 59 Cal.4th 830, 875, fn. 11 ; § 1259.) Nunez challenges CALCRIM No. 403, not on the ground that it incorrectly stated the law, but on the ground that it was insufficiently clear.

2021(Cf. People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 669 [defendant forfeited any instructional error by not objecting below and instead approving modified instruction]; (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 [failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits claim of error].) Appellant does not deny this, but argues “the claim is statutorily preserved” via section 1259.

2016(Cf. San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 669 [defendant forfeited any instructional error by not objecting below and instead approving modified instruction]; People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 [failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits claim of error].) As discussed above, when the trial court discussed its proposed jury instructions with counsel, Tschida's counsel stated an instruction on voluntary intoxication, either CALCRIM No. 625 or No. 3426, should be given and asserted CALCRIM No. 3426 was simpler.

2026Appellants contend that CALCRIM No. 521 and CALCRIM No. 526 provide the jury with an incorrect definition of “premeditation,” because the pattern instructions do not inform the jury that premeditation requires “substantially more reflection” than the intent required for second degree murder. “‘“A trial court has a duty to instruct the jury ‘sua sponte on general principles which are closely and openly connected with the facts before the court.’”’” (People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629 , 677, quoting People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 13 Cal.4th 789 , 824.) However, the court has no duty to “revi

2023(People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1 , 66; People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326 .) “‘In assessing a claim of instructional error or ambiguity, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.’” (People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1199; accord, People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 791 .) We assume “jurors are intelligent and well able to understand and integrate all the instructions given.” (People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn, at p. 791.) C.

2015“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal. [Citations.]” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) However, even if we were to deem defendant’s argument cognizable on appeal, we find any instructional error as to voluntary intoxication implicating his claim of imperfect self-defense harmless under both People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , and the more stringent standard set

2014“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal. [Citations.]” ( Lee, supra, at p. 638 .) Even assuming the trial court was required to instruct the jury that “ ‘consent’ ” is defined as “positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will,” 16 any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (§ 261.6; see Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman)

2025Legal Principles “ ‘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. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 58 (Townsel).) “A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) “[

2025(People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 58 .) Nevertheless, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) We review a claim of instructional error de novo.

2014The relevant inquiry here is whether, ―in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record, there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled to defendant‘s prejudice.‖ (People v. Pollock (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1153, 1189 .) Also, ― ‗ ―we must assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.‖ [Citation.]‘ ‖ (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1321 .) The trial court here instructed the jury on the definition of kidnapping, in the language of CALJIC No. 9.50: ―Every person who unlawfully and

2014The relevant inquiry here is whether, “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record, there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled to defendant’s prejudice.” (People v. Pollock (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1153, 1189 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 34 , 89 P.3d 353 ].) Also, “ ‘ “we must assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1321 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 , 254 P.3d 249 ].) The trial court here instructed the jury on the definition of kidnapp

2026(Ramirez, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 1117.) When the motion “was made ‘at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the sufficiency of the evidence is tested as it stood at that point’ in the trial.” (People v. Watkins (2012) 55 Cal.4th 999, 1019 .) Measured at that time, substantial evidence supported a finding that Thomas used the Glock.

2026(Ramirez, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 1117.) When the motion “was made ‘at the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the sufficiency of the evidence is tested as it stood at that point’ in the trial.” (People v. Watkins (2012) 55 Cal.4th 999, 1019.) Measured at that time, substantial evidence supported a finding that Thomas used the Glock.

2025“There is no authority requiring that a jury be instructed sua sponte on the various Clark factors.” (People v. Superior Court (White), supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at p. 1277; see Estrada, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 575, 579 [where the jury is “instructed in the language” of section 190.2, subdivision (d), the “trial court does not have a sua sponte duty to further amplify ‘reckless indifference to human life’”]; People v. Price (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 409, 444 (Price) [same]; see also Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 719-720 [the “mandatory instructions” on the felony-murder special circumstance did no