good jury instruction in California

2021(Id. at pp. 61-62.) “Language in an appellate opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.” (People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 .) “The reviewing court generally does not contemplate a subsequent transmutation of its words into jury instructions and hence does not choose them with that end in mind.” (People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 , 221 fn. 13.) Thus, language intended to “ ‘guide[] appellate courts in conducting sufficiency-of-evidence review’ ” of particular jury findings

2014Instead, he draws the phrase from language in cases such as People v. Parnell, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at pages 407–410 and People v. Thomas, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at page 1334 , in which the court used the term to describe what had occurred.8 “Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.” (People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201 , 204–205; see also People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206, 221, fn. 13 .) The fact that appellate courts have discussed the concept of “con

2011The challenged instruction was given in this case because, as in People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 , 865 P.2d 704 ], the trial judge much too quickly assumed “that a correct statement of substantive law will provide a sound basis for charging the jury.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13; accord, People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 684 ] [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”]; see People v. Smith (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2011The challenged instruction was given in this case because, as in People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 , 865 P.2d 704 ], the trial judge much too quickly assumed “that a correct statement of substantive law will provide a sound basis for charging the jury.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13; accord, People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 684 ] [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”]; see People v. Smith (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2011The challenged instruction was given in this case because, as in People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 , 865 P.2d 704 ], the trial judge much too quickly assumed “that a correct statement of substantive law will provide a sound basis for charging the jury.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13; accord, People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 684 ] [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”]; see People v. Smith (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2011The challenged instruction was given in this case because, as in People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 , 865 P.2d 704 ], the trial judge much too quickly assumed “that a correct statement of substantive law will provide a sound basis for charging the jury.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13; accord, People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 684 ] [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”]; see People v. Smith (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2011The challenged instruction was given in this case because, as in People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 , 865 P.2d 704 ], the trial judge much too quickly assumed “that a correct statement of substantive law will provide a sound basis for charging the jury.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13; accord, People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 684 ] [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”]; see People v. Smith (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2011The challenged instruction was given in this case because, as in People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 , 865 P.2d 704 ], the trial judge much too quickly assumed “that a correct statement of substantive law will provide a sound basis for charging the jury.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13; accord, People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 684 ] [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”]; see People v. Smith (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2025“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.” (People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201 , 204–205.) The appellate courts, in discussing legal principles for one purpose, may not have contemplated their language being used as a jury instruction.

2025We therefore strongly caution that when evaluating special instructions, trial courts carefully consider whether such derivative application is consistent with their original usage.”]; People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201 , 204–205 15 [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”].) We also note that the second paragraph of Cabral’s proposed pinpoint instruction is a nearly verbatim excerpt from In re Muhammed C. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1325 at pages 1330–1331.

2014(Lee, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1777 [Moller “devised a test to determine whether a certain item of personal property is a fixture”].) The court further explained (1) that Lee did not quote the Moller test as required language for a jury instruction and did not suggest that the Civil Code section 660 definition is not a good jury instruction for fixtures other than carpeting, and (2) that the test’s language, “ ‘integral part of some realty’ ” and “ ‘essential to the ordinary and convenient use of the property’ ” (Lee, at p. 1777), is in fact misleading “without explanation or context, such

2013(Cf. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 31 [case law regarding sufficiency of evidence on appeal of premeditation and deliberation would be an 14 improper jury instruction].) "Language in an appellate opinion which may be a good statement of law or the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction." (People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201 , 204–205; cf. People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206, 221, fn. 13 .) Alone, the type of injury inflicted may well establish the intent to disfigure sufficient to sustain a conviction.

2011The challenged instruction was given in this case because, as in People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 , 865 P.2d 704 ], the trial judge much too quickly assumed “that a correct statement of substantive law will provide a sound basis for charging the jury.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13; accord, People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 684 ] [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”]; see People v. Smith (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

2011The challenged instruction was given in this case because, as in People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 908 , 865 P.2d 704 ], the trial judge much too quickly assumed “that a correct statement of substantive law will provide a sound basis for charging the jury.” (Id. at p. 221, fn. 13; accord, People v. Adams (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 201, 204-205 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 684 ] [“Language in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.”]; see People v. Smith (1989) 214 Cal.Ap

1987(See People v. Kaiser (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 754, 766 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Rocha (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 972, 980 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 81 ].) Language-in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the *205 appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.

1987(See People v. Kaiser (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 754, 766 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Rocha (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 972, 980 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 81 ].) Language-in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the *205 appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.

1987(See People v. Kaiser (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 754, 766 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Rocha (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 972, 980 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 81 ].) Language-in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the *205 appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.

1987(See People v. Kaiser (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 754, 766 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 62 ]; People v. Rocha (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 972, 980 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 81 ].) Language-in an appellate court opinion which may be a good statement of law or of the reasoning of the *205 appellate court does not necessarily make a good jury instruction.