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.
11 California opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2024 3 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. Smithgreen2 sentences2024(See People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13 [“The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole.”]; People v. Jeffries (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 15, 22 [“‘“The fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial.”’”].) Second, Chapman argues “CALJIC No. 4.74 was not modified to state that the DOC is a law enforcement agency, and the jury was not instructed of this fact.” In the context of the parties’ 2024(Cf. People v. Merritt, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 824 [the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the elements of robbery was constitutional error].) “The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole.” (Smith, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 13 ; accord, People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) Because the court correctly and completely instructed the jury considering the instructions as a whole and defendant simply challenges the timing of certain instructions, we apply an abuse of discretion standa | 3 | 10 |
People v. Musselwhitegreen2 sentences2024(Cf. People v. Merritt, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 824 [the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the elements of robbery was constitutional error].) “The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole.” (Smith, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 13 ; accord, People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) Because the court correctly and completely instructed the jury considering the instructions as a whole and defendant simply challenges the timing of certain instructions, we apply an abuse of discretion standa 2019We must “evaluate the instructions as a whole, not in isolation” (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 544 ), recognizing that “[t]he absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by 11 another instruction or [by] the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13 , citing People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) Applying these standards, there was no error because end-of-trial instructions cured any defect with the pretrial instruction. | 2 | 3 |
People v. Guerrared2 sentences2015Indeed, the trial court had already instructed the jury on the elements of the natural and probable consequences of aiding and abetting––the same elements defendant claims were missing from the court’s response. “[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 75 instruction.” (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 [disapproved on other grounds by People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743 ].) “The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by anothe 2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc | 1 | 2 |
People v. Younggreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 [reviewing court “must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury”]; accord, People v. Kumar (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 557 , 564.) Addressing the statute of limitations in their closing arguments to the jury, Chapman’s attorney and the prosecutor focused on Lipton’s discovery of the fraud offenses. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kumargreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 [reviewing court “must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury”]; accord, People v. Kumar (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 557 , 564.) Addressing the statute of limitations in their closing arguments to the jury, Chapman’s attorney and the prosecutor focused on Lipton’s discovery of the fraud offenses. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Merrittgreen1 sentence2024(Cf. People v. Merritt, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 824 [the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the elements of robbery was constitutional error].) “The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole.” (Smith, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 13 ; accord, People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) Because the court correctly and completely instructed the jury considering the instructions as a whole and defendant simply challenges the timing of certain instructions, we apply an abuse of discretion standa | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jeffriesgreen1 sentence2024(See People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13 [“The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole.”]; People v. Jeffries (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 15, 22 [“‘“The fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial.”’”].) Second, Chapman argues “CALJIC No. 4.74 was not modified to state that the DOC is a law enforcement agency, and the jury was not instructed of this fact.” In the context of the parties’ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dunklered1 sentence2019(See People v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 928-929 [error in pretrial instruction cured by correct instruction at the end of trial], overruled on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421 ; People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 780-781 [same].) What is more, the trial court told the jury it would receive “final” “instructions” after the jury heard all the evidence, and when the trial court gave its final instruction containing the “intent to cause death” element in this case, the court emphasized the finality of that instruction by handing out hard copies of that instr | 1 | 1 |
People v. Livaditisgreen1 sentence2019(See People v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 928-929 [error in pretrial instruction cured by correct instruction at the end of trial], overruled on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421 ; People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 780-781 [same].) What is more, the trial court told the jury it would receive “final” “instructions” after the jury heard all the evidence, and when the trial court gave its final instruction containing the “intent to cause death” element in this case, the court emphasized the finality of that instruction by handing out hard copies of that instr | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2016(Maurer, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) On this standard, the inquiry “is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 (Sullivan); see also People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 515 (Flood).) Before turning to the merits of defendant’s claim of error, we note the People’s contention that defendant forfeited the claim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Floodgreen1 sentence2016(Maurer, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) On this standard, the inquiry “is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 (Sullivan); see also People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 515 (Flood).) Before turning to the merits of defendant’s claim of error, we note the People’s contention that defendant forfeited the claim. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burgenerred1 sentence2015Indeed, the trial court had already instructed the jury on the elements of the natural and probable consequences of aiding and abetting––the same elements defendant claims were missing from the court’s response. “[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 75 instruction.” (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 [disapproved on other grounds by People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743 ].) “The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by anothe | 1 | 1 |
Estelle v. McGuiregreen2 sentences2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc 2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc 2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Heishmanred2 sentences2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc 2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc | 1 | 1 |
People v. Yrigoyengreen2 sentences2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc 2008(Ibid.) Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are “ ' “ ‘intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1148 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118 , 129 P.3d 321 ].) The United States Supreme Court essentially applies the same “whole record” standard in reviewing claims that an instruction violated due process: *14 “The only question for us is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due proc | 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. Sang Thai Chung
green
1 sentence2024(Cf. People v. Merritt, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 824 [the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the elements of robbery was constitutional error].) “The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole.” (Smith, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 13 ; accord, People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) Because the court correctly and completely instructed the jury considering the instructions as a whole and defendant simply challenges the timing of certain instructions, we apply an abuse of discretion standa | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2024(Cf. People v. Merritt, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 824 [the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the elements of robbery was constitutional error].) “The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole.” (Smith, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 13 ; accord, People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) Because the court correctly and completely instructed the jury considering the instructions as a whole and defendant simply challenges the timing of certain instructions, we apply an abuse of discretion standa | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2019We must “evaluate the instructions as a whole, not in isolation” (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 544 ), recognizing that “[t]he absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by 11 another instruction or [by] the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Smith (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 7, 13 , citing People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) Applying these standards, there was no error because end-of-trial instructions cured any defect with the pretrial instruction. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Doolin
green
1 sentence2019(See People v. Dunkle (2005) 36 Cal.4th 861, 928-929 [error in pretrial instruction cured by correct instruction at the end of trial], overruled on other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421 ; People v. Livaditis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 759, 780-781 [same].) What is more, the trial court told the jury it would receive “final” “instructions” after the jury heard all the evidence, and when the trial court gave its final instruction containing the “intent to cause death” element in this case, the court emphasized the finality of that instruction by handing out hard copies of that instr | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
1 sentence2016The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.’ [Citation.] We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from the entire charge of the court, not from considering only parts of an instruction or one particular instruction. [Citation.] The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole. [Citation.] Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are ‘“‘“intelligent persons and capable of understandi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Maurer
green
1 sentence2016(Maurer, supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 .) On this standard, the inquiry “is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” (Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 279 (Sullivan); see also People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470, 515 (Flood).) Before turning to the merits of defendant’s claim of error, we note the People’s contention that defendant forfeited the claim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Reyes
green
1 sentence2015Indeed, the trial court had already instructed the jury on the elements of the natural and probable consequences of aiding and abetting––the same elements defendant claims were missing from the court’s response. “[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 75 instruction.” (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 [disapproved on other grounds by People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743 ].) “The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by anothe | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Burney
red
1 sentence2013(People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from the entire charge of the court, not from considering only parts of an instruction or one particular 23 instruction. [Citation.] The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole. [Citation.]” Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are ‘“‘“intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.”’ [Citation.]” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from the entire charge of the court, not from considering only parts of an instruction or one particular 23 instruction. [Citation.] The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole. [Citation.]” Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are ‘“‘“intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.”’ [Citation.]” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Avila
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Jackson (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 918, 923 .) “We determine the correctness of the jury instructions from the entire charge of the court, not from considering only parts of an instruction or one particular 23 instruction. [Citation.] The absence of an essential element from one instruction may be cured by another instruction or the instructions taken as a whole. [Citation.]” Further, in examining the entire charge we assume that jurors are ‘“‘“intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.”’ [Citation.]” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.