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 1925–2025 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. Earpgreen1 sentence2014(Ibid.) Our Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887 (Earp). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ewoldtyellow2 sentences2013(Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 393.) Although defendant contends the trial court should have modified the instruction to conform to the law, no modification was suggested below. 2013(Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 393 .) Although defendant contends the trial court should have modified the instruction to conform to the law, no modification was suggested below. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gatesred2 sentences1988(People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1181-1182 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 743 P.2d 301 ].) The second proposed instruction concerned the time at which the intent to steal was formed: “If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant formed an intent to steal from Mr. Parmer and/or Mr. Haynes before they were shot, then you are instructed that Mr. Parmer and/or Mr. Haynes were not killed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, the crime of robbery.” In refusing this charge the court expressly and correctly followed the long settled rule that an instruction that may confuse the jury 1988(People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1181-1182 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 666 , 743 P.2d 301 ].) The second proposed instruction concerned the time at which the intent to steal was formed: “If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant formed an intent to steal from Mr. Parmer and/or Mr. Haynes before they were shot, then you are instructed that Mr. Parmer and/or Mr. Haynes were not killed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, the crime of robbery.” In refusing this charge the court expressly and correctly followed the long settled rule that an instruction that may confuse the jury | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whitehorngreen2 sentences1988Relying on People v. Whitehorn (1963) 60 Cal.2d 256, 264-265 [ 32 Cal. Rptr. 199 , 383 P.2d 783 ], defendant argues that the court had a duty to correct what he styles the "cosmetic problem" with the instruction. 1988Relying on People v. Whitehorn (1963) 60 Cal.2d 256, 264-265 [ 32 Cal. Rptr. 199 , 383 P.2d 783 ], defendant argues that the court had a duty to correct what he styles the "cosmetic problem" with the instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Adesgreen2 sentences1962The second proposed instruction declared: “Evidence that there was no excess of community income over community expenses is as effective to prove that all assets in the name of a decedent are separate property as a specific showing from which separate source each asset flowed.” The proposed instruction is based upon a statement in Estate of Ades, 81 Cal.App.2d 334, 339 [ 184 P.2d 1 ], which was quoted with approval in Estate of Arstein, 56 Cal.2d 239, 242 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 364 P.2d 33 ]. 1962The second proposed instruction declared: “Evidence that there was no excess of community income over community expenses is as effective to prove that all assets in the name of a decedent are separate property as a specific showing from which separate source each asset flowed.” The proposed instruction is based upon a statement in Estate of Ades, 81 Cal.App.2d 334, 339 [ 184 P.2d 1 ], which was quoted with approval in Estate of Arstein, 56 Cal.2d 239, 242 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 364 P.2d 33 ]. | 1 | 1 |
Arstein v. Union Bankgreen2 sentences1962The second proposed instruction declared: “Evidence that there was no excess of community income over community expenses is as effective to prove that all assets in the name of a decedent are separate property as a specific showing from which separate source each asset flowed.” The proposed instruction is based upon a statement in Estate of Ades, 81 Cal.App.2d 334, 339 [ 184 P.2d 1 ], which was quoted with approval in Estate of Arstein, 56 Cal.2d 239, 242 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 364 P.2d 33 ]. 1962The second proposed instruction declared: “Evidence that there was no excess of community income over community expenses is as effective to prove that all assets in the name of a decedent are separate property as a specific showing from which separate source each asset flowed.” The proposed instruction is based upon a statement in Estate of Ades, 81 Cal.App.2d 334, 339 [ 184 P.2d 1 ], which was quoted with approval in Estate of Arstein, 56 Cal.2d 239, 242 [ 14 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 364 P.2d 33 ]. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Borregogreen2 sentences1944(People v. Borrego, 211 Cal. 759, 764 [ 297 P. 17 ].) As to the second proposed instruction, the defendant may be so contradicted by circumstances alone as to render his testimony incredible. 1944(People v. Borrego, 211 Cal. 759, 764 [ 297 P. 17 ].) As to the second proposed instruction, the defendant may be so contradicted by circumstances alone as to render his testimony incredible. | 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. Smithey
green
2 sentences2020We have previously held that such instructions are not necessary because “the catchall section 190.3, factor (k) instruction ‘allows the jury to consider a 84 PEOPLE v. FREDERICKSON, Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. virtually unlimited range of mitigating circumstances.’ ” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 1007 .) The third proposed instruction would have told the jury it could not consider evidence of defendant’s lifestyle or background as an aggravating factor, but it could consider such evidence as a mitigating factor. 2020We have previously held that such instructions are not necessary because “the catchall section 190.3, factor (k) instruction ‘allows the jury to consider a 84 PEOPLE v. FREDERICKSON, Opinion of the Court by Chin, J. virtually unlimited range of mitigating circumstances.’ ” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 1007 .) The third proposed instruction would have told the jury it could not consider evidence of defendant’s lifestyle or background as an aggravating factor, but it could consider such evidence as a mitigating factor. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hillhouse
green
2 sentences2020(People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 509 .) The second proposed instruction would have told the jury that its consideration of mitigating factors was not limited to the factors provided and that jurors could consider any other circumstances relating to the case or to defendant as reasons for not imposing the death penalty. 2020(People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 509 .) The second proposed instruction would have told the jury that its consideration of mitigating factors was not limited to the factors provided and that jurors could consider any other circumstances relating to the case or to defendant as reasons for not imposing the death penalty. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Johnson
red
2 sentences2020(People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 320 ; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 52 .) The second proposed instruction would have told the jury that the presence of a single mitigating factor is sufficient to support a vote against imposing the death penalty. 2020(People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 320 ; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 52 .) The second proposed instruction would have told the jury that the presence of a single mitigating factor is sufficient to support a vote against imposing the death penalty. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Perry
green
2 sentences2020(People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 320 ; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 52 .) The second proposed instruction would have told the jury that the presence of a single mitigating factor is sufficient to support a vote against imposing the death penalty. 2020(People v. Perry (2006) 38 Cal.4th 302, 320 ; People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 52 .) The second proposed instruction would have told the jury that the presence of a single mitigating factor is sufficient to support a vote against imposing the death penalty. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Gurule
green
2 sentences2020(See People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 659 .) The second proposed instruction stated: “You may not consider as an aggravating factor anything other than the factors contained in this list that you conclude are aggravating in this case. 2020(See People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 659 .) The second proposed instruction stated: “You may not consider as an aggravating factor anything other than the factors contained in this list that you conclude are aggravating in this case. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Hartsch
green
2 sentences2025It is hardly a difficult concept for the jury to grasp that acquittal is required if there is reasonable doubt as to whether someone else committed the charged crimes.” (Ibid.) 1 The first proposed instruction in Hartsch was: “ ‘If the evidence presented in this case convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you should so find, even though you may believe that one or more other persons are also guilty. [¶] On the other hand, if you entertain a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after an impartial consideration of the evidence presented in the case, including 2025It is hardly a difficult concept for the jury to grasp that acquittal is required if there is reasonable doubt as to whether someone else committed the charged crimes.” (Ibid.) 1 The first proposed instruction in Hartsch was: “ ‘If the evidence presented in this case convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you should so find, even though you may believe that one or more other persons are also guilty. [¶] On the other hand, if you entertain a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after an impartial consideration of the evidence presented in the case, including | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Strange
neutral
2 sentences1988(People v. Strange (1882) 61 Cal. 496, 497 .) Although they had the opportunity, defense counsel made no attempt to redraft the instruction. 1988The claim-of-right defense is inapplicable to claims based on notoriously illegal activities. ( People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1181-1182 [ 240 Cal. Rptr. 666 , 743 P.2d 301 ].) The second proposed instruction concerned the time at which the intent to steal was formed: "If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant *643 formed an intent to steal from Mr. Parmer and/or Mr. Haynes before they were shot, then you are instructed that Mr. Parmer and/or Mr. Haynes were not killed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, the crime of robbery." In refusing this charge the court | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Benham
green
1 sentence1925(Wheatley v. State (Tex. Cr.), 39 S. W. 672 ; State v. Benham, 23 Iowa, 154 [ 92 Am. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.