defense requests instruction in California

2023When the defense requests the instruction, the refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense may also violate the federal constitutional requirement that the courts afford every criminal defendant “ ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683, 690 ; Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 868, fn. 16 .) This standard is premised on the defendant’s right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ( Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at pp. 871-872.) Here, defense cou

2018Even evidence that is unconvincing or subject to justifiable suspicion may constitute substantial evidence and may trigger the lesser-included-offense requirement. ( People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668 , 690, 268 Cal.Rptr. 706 , 789 P.2d 887 .) When the defense requests the instruction, the refusal to instruct on a lesser-included offense may also violate the federal constitution's requirement that the courts afford every criminal defendant " 'a meaningful opportunity to *793 present a complete defense.' " ( Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683 , 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 ; Peopl

2018Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826 , 868, fn. 16, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) As part of this right, a defendant is " 'entitled to adequate instructions on the defense theory of the *888 case' if supported by the law and evidence [citation] and ' "has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence ..." ' [citation]." ( People v. Eid (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 859 , 879, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ; People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703 , 736, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 , 50 P.3d 332 ["Defendants have a constitutional right to have the jury determine every materi

2018Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826 , 868, fn. 16, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) As part of this right, a defendant is " 'entitled to adequate instructions on the defense theory of the *888 case' if supported by the law and evidence [citation] and ' "has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence ..." ' [citation]." ( People v. Eid (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 859 , 879, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ; People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703 , 736, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 , 50 P.3d 332 ["Defendants have a constitutional right to have the jury determine every materi

2018(People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 690 .) When the defense requests the instruction, the refusal to instruct on a lesser-included offense may also violate the federal constitution’s requirement that the courts afford every criminal defendant “ ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683, 690 ; People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826, 868, fn. 16 .) As part of this right, a defendant is “ ‘entitled to adequate instructions on the defense theory of the case’ if supported by the law and evidence [citation] 6 and ‘ “has a constitutional ri

2018Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th 826 , 868, fn. 16, 48 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 , 141 P.3d 135 .) As part of this right, a defendant is " 'entitled to adequate instructions on the defense theory of the *888 case' if supported by the law and evidence [citation] and ' "has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence ..." ' [citation]." ( People v. Eid (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 859 , 879, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 ; People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703 , 736, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 545 , 50 P.3d 332 ["Defendants have a constitutional right to have the jury determine every materi

2018Even evidence that is unconvincing or subject to justifiable suspicion may constitute substantial evidence and may trigger the lesser-included-offense requirement. ( People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668 , 690, 268 Cal.Rptr. 706 , 789 P.2d 887 .) When the defense requests the instruction, the refusal to instruct on a lesser-included offense may also violate the federal constitution's requirement that the courts afford every criminal defendant " 'a meaningful opportunity to *793 present a complete defense.' " ( Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683 , 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 ; Peopl

2018Even evidence that is unconvincing or subject to justifiable suspicion may constitute substantial evidence and may trigger the lesser-included-offense requirement. ( People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668 , 690, 268 Cal.Rptr. 706 , 789 P.2d 887 .) When the defense requests the instruction, the refusal to instruct on a lesser-included offense may also violate the federal constitution's requirement that the courts afford every criminal defendant " 'a meaningful opportunity to *793 present a complete defense.' " ( Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683 , 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142 , 90 L.Ed.2d 636 ; Peopl

2026Applicable Law A trial court may discharge a juror upon a showing of “good cause” that the juror “is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089.) “Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court’s duty ‘to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ to determine whether the juror should be discharged.” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 821 .) “The duty to conduct an investigation when the court possesses information that might constitute good cause to remove a juror rests with the trial court whether or not the defense

2026Applicable Law A trial court may discharge a juror upon a showing of “good cause” that the juror “is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089.) “Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court’s duty ‘to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ to determine whether the juror should be discharged.” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 821 .) “The duty to conduct an investigation when the court possesses information that might constitute good cause to remove a juror rests with the trial court whether or not the defense

2026Applicable Law A trial court may discharge a juror upon a showing of “good cause” that the juror “is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089.) “Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court’s duty ‘to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ to determine whether the juror should be discharged.” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 821 .) “The duty to conduct an investigation when the court possesses information that might constitute good cause to remove a juror rests with the trial court whether or not the defense

2026Applicable Law A trial court may discharge a juror upon a showing of “good cause” that the juror “is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089.) “Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court’s duty ‘to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ to determine whether the juror should be discharged.” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 821 .) “The duty to conduct an investigation when the court possesses information that might constitute good cause to remove a juror rests with the trial court whether or not the defense

2026Applicable Law A trial court may discharge a juror upon a showing of “good cause” that the juror “is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089.) “Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court’s duty ‘to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ to determine whether the juror should be discharged.” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 821 .) “The duty to conduct an investigation when the court possesses information that might constitute good cause to remove a juror rests with the trial court whether or not the defense

2026Applicable Law A trial court may discharge a juror upon a showing of “good cause” that the juror “is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089.) “Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court’s duty ‘to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ to determine whether the juror should be discharged.” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 821 .) “The duty to conduct an investigation when the court possesses information that might constitute good cause to remove a juror rests with the trial court whether or not the defense

2026Applicable Law A trial court may discharge a juror upon a showing of “good cause” that the juror “is found to be unable to perform his or her duty.” (§ 1089.) “Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court’s duty ‘to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary’ to determine whether the juror should be discharged.” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 821 .) “The duty to conduct an investigation when the court possesses information that might constitute good cause to remove a juror rests with the trial court whether or not the defense

2026“In determining whether [juror] misconduct occurred, ‘[w]e accept the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 417 .) C.

2021As for Johnsen’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to remove Juror Y.P. on its own motion, we have held that a defendant forfeits such claims of prejudicial juror misconduct when defense counsel does not “propose additional questions [be asked of jurors], object to any juror’s continued service, or request a mistrial on the ground of juror misconduct.” (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1341 ; see People v. Holloway (2004) 33 Cal.4th 96, 124 .) Defense counsel declined the trial court’s invitations to question Juror Y.P. and to bring a motion to remove Juror Y.P. from the jury

2021“When the defense requests the instruction, the refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense may also violate the federal constitution’s requirement that the courts afford every criminal defendant ‘“a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”’ [Citations.] As part of this right, a defendant is ‘“entitled to adequate 13 instructions on the defense theory of the case” if supported by the law and evidence [citation] and “‘has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence . . .’” [citation].’ [Citations.]” (People v. Vasquez (2018

2016(Id. at p. 517.) Similarly in People v. Ray (1996) 13 Cal.4th 313, 343 , the court reviewed on the merits whether the trial court erred in failing to investigate a juror’s association with the victim’s daughter, even though defense counsel had told the trial court it saw “no ‘reason to inquire.’ ” In Cowan, the court considered if the trial court should have inquired into a juror’s statement that another juror may have been speaking with the defendant’s family members during the penalty phase of a murder trial (Cowan, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 507 ) and expressly rejected the argument that the d

2016“The duty to conduct an investigation when the court possesses information that might constitute good cause to remove a juror rests with the trial court whether or not the defense requests an inquiry, and indeed exists even if the defendant objects to such an inquiry.” (People v. Cowan (2010) 50 Cal.4th 401, 506 (Cowan).) As the court explained in Cowan, the trial court’s duty is to conduct “ ‘an inquiry sufficient to determine the facts . . . whenever the court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist.’ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 , di

2013(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 157 ; People v. Elize (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 611-615 (Elize).) Amos presented an alibi defense to the charges.

2010For example, in People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747 , 62 P.3d 1 ], we held that the trial court had erred by failing to conduct an investigation after a juror brought it to the court’s attention that another juror appeared to be intoxicated during deliberations, even though defense counsel objected to questioning the accused juror or other jurors.

2010For example, in People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 519 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 747 , 62 P.3d 1 ], we held that the trial court had erred by failing to conduct an investigation after a juror brought it to the court’s attention that another juror appeared to be intoxicated during deliberations, even though defense counsel objected to questioning the accused juror or other jurors.