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 2 courts 1988–2023 1 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. Warrengreen2 sentences2004Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].) The trial court has a duty to instruct on all applicable principles of law, including defenses. 2004Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].) The trial court has a duty to instruct on all applicable principles of law, including defenses. | 3 | 6 |
California v. Browngreen2 sentences2014In Beeman, our Supreme Court declared: "[W]e conclude that the weight of authority and sound law require proof that an aider and 15 We note that recently in People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 476 , the California Supreme Court stated that in determining the meaning the instructional charge conveys, "the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.]" As authority for this proposition, the court cited California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 541 . 2013(E.g., California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 541 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. ([Ibid].) Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].) “The test is whether there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge’ in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.” (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1191 | 2 | 4 |
Boyde v. Californiagreen2 sentences2014However, in Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370 , 379–380, the United States Supreme Court observed that a number of its cases (including California v. Brown ) had used numerous different phrasings, and made it a point to settle on the "reasonable likelihood" standard as the single standard of review for jury instructions. 2013(E.g., California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 541 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. ([Ibid].) Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].) “The test is whether there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge’ in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.” (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1191 | 1 | 3 |
People v. Bensongreen2 sentences2013(E.g., California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 541 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. ([Ibid].) Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].) “The test is whether there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge’ in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.” (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1191 2013(E.g., California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 541 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. ([Ibid].) Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].) “The test is whether there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge’ in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.” (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1191 | 1 | 2 |
People v. McPetersred2 sentences2013(E.g., California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 541 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. ([Ibid].) Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].) “The test is whether there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge’ in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.” (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1191 2013(E.g., California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 541 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 934 , 107 S.Ct. 837 ].) In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. ([Ibid].) Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 [ 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 ].) “The test is whether there is a ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge’ in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.” (People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1191 | 1 | 2 |
Strouse v. Webcor Constr., L.P.green1 sentence2023Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we 19 consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.’ ” (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 476 .) “ ‘The test is whether there is a “reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge,” in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.’ ” (Ibid.) Although we view the evidence in the light most favorable t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Scottgreen1 sentence2013Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.” (People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 , citations omitted.) Burglary is defined by statute as the entry into a house or other specified structure with intent to commit larceny or any felony. (§ 459.) “In a burglary prosecution, complete and accurate jury instructions include the definition of each felony the of judgment, we strike the duplicate enhancement pursuant to our authority to modify an unauthorized sentence. (§ 1260; see also, People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 .) When the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Flannelred2 sentences2000Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly." ( People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 , 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 .) The Supreme Court articulated the doctrine of imperfect self-defense in People v. Flannel, supra, 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 , concluding that "[a]n honest but unreasona 2000Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly." ( People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 487 , 247 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 754 P.2d 218 .) The Supreme Court articulated the doctrine of imperfect self-defense in People v. Flannel, supra, 25 Cal.3d 668 , 160 Cal. Rptr. 84 , 603 P.2d 1 , concluding that "[a]n honest but unreasona | 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. Pearson
green
2 sentences2023Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we 19 consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.’ ” (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 476 .) “ ‘The test is whether there is a “reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge,” in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.’ ” (Ibid.) Although we view the evidence in the light most favorable t 2014In Beeman, our Supreme Court declared: "[W]e conclude that the weight of authority and sound law require proof that an aider and 15 We note that recently in People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 476 , the California Supreme Court stated that in determining the meaning the instructional charge conveys, "the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.]" As authority for this proposition, the court cited California v. Brown (1987) 479 U.S. 538, 541 . | 2 | 2014–2023 |
Scott v. RAYHRER
green
2 sentences2015(Scott v. Rayhrer (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1540 .) “ ‘Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Woodward (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 821, 834 .) We conclude that there was no error in the trial court’s instruction identifying the subject of the consumer expectation test as the vehicle, rat 2014(Scott v. Rayhrer (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1540 .) “ ‘Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Woodward (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 821, 834 .) The instruction at issue addressed damages that the jury could award Plaintiffs for violation of Unruh, under section 52, subdivision (a). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
People v. Woodward
green
2 sentences2015(Scott v. Rayhrer (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1540 .) “ ‘Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Woodward (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 821, 834 .) We conclude that there was no error in the trial court’s instruction identifying the subject of the consumer expectation test as the vehicle, rat 2014(Scott v. Rayhrer (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1540 .) “ ‘Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Woodward (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 821, 834 .) The instruction at issue addressed damages that the jury could award Plaintiffs for violation of Unruh, under section 52, subdivision (a). | 2 | 2014–2015 |
Henderson v. Harnischfeger Corp.
green
1 sentence2023Here the question is, how would a reasonable juror understand the instruction. [Citation.] In addressing this question, we 19 consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the charge in its entirety. [Citation.] Finally, we determine whether the instruction, so understood, states the applicable law correctly.’ ” (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 476 .) “ ‘The test is whether there is a “reasonable likelihood that the jury . . . understood the charge,” in a manner that violated defendant’s rights.’ ” (Ibid.) Although we view the evidence in the light most favorable t | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.