gives instruction in California

2026(People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 [forfeiture rule does not apply when “the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.”].) Thus, we consider Thompson’s 13 challenge to the instruction, and we review de novo whether a jury instruction accurately describes the law.

2026Generally, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) However, “that rule [of forfeiture] does not apply when . . . the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 .) 11 correctly state the law” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ), and we concl

2022(Id. at p. 1012; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 [“[T]he forfeiture rule ‘does not apply when . . . the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.’ ”].) Therefore, to determine whether Gerson forfeited his argument, we must first determine whether the instruction was correct in law.

2022(Id. at p. 1012; People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 312 [“[T]he forfeiture rule ‘does not apply when . . . the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.’ ”].) Therefore, to determine whether Gerson forfeited his argument, we must first determine whether the instruction was correct in law.

2024Where . . . “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.” ’ ” (Metcalf v. Cnty. of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121 , 1130–1131.) “Plaintiff’s failure to request any different instructions means he may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently.” (Id. at p. 1131.) SFFCU has not identified any evidence in the record indicating it objected to the phrase “unfairly and without good faith” in C

2023Where “ ‘ “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.” ’ ” (Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1131 .) Plaintiff’s failure to request any different or additional instructions means she “may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently.” (Ibid.) III Rejection of Expert Testimony Under a heading separate from her instructional error claims, plaintiff asserts expert testimo

2016Where, as here, “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] [A party’s] failure to request any different instructions means he may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 1130-1131; see also Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 990, 1011 [“When a trial court ‘gives a jury instruction which is correct as far as

2014We agree. “ ‘In a civil case, each of the parties must propose complete and comprehensive instructions in accordance with his theory of the litigation; if the parties do not do so, the court has no duty to instruct on its own motion.’ ” (Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 950-951 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 ].) “ ‘Where, as here, “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] [A par

2026Generally, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) However, “that rule [of forfeiture] does not apply when . . . the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 .) 11 correctly state the law” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 ), and we concl

2024Preponderance Instruction “A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal [citations].” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 (Lee); People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 757 [where “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to hav

2022Searle & Co. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 691 , 701–702.) 11 If a party wants a tailored version of an instruction such as CACI No. 3704 to address a specific concern, that party must identify the problem before the jury is instructed, and then propose whatever clarifying or supplemental language he or she believes is necessary to address the problem. “‘Where, as here, “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.”’” (Metcalf, supr

2008Searle & Co. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 691, 701-702 , 200 Cal.Rptr. 870 , 677 P.2d 1147 .) "`Instructions in the language of an applicable statute are properly given.' (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Trial, § 280, p. 326.) Where, as here, `the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.' [Citations.]" ( Conservatorship of Gregory (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 514, 520 , 95 Cal. Rptr.2d 336 .) Plaintiffs failure to request any diff

2016He claims the modified instruction allowed the jury to convict based solely on a "threat," rather than "force or violence." The People contend Matthews forfeited his challenge by failing to object below. " 'Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.' [Citations.] But that rule does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law." (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4t

2014The forfeiture “rule does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law. [Citations.]” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 .) In any event, “we review the merits of any claim of instructional error that allegedly affects a defendant’s substantial rights, even in the absence of an objection. [Citations.]” (People v. Brown, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 9, fn. 5 .) The trial court’s erred in instructing the jury pursuant to former CALCRIM No. 875 on a legally incorrect theory.

2024(People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 73 .) However, “[a] trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 (Lee); People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 757 [where “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instructio

2024Preponderance Instruction “A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal [citations].” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 (Lee); People v. Welch (1999) 20 Cal.4th 701, 757 [where “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to hav

2023(See, e.g., People v. Smithy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976, fn. 7 .) Accordingly, as the People recognize, where “the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law,” a criminal defendant may appeal the instruction whether or not he or she objected to the instruction at trial.

2006"Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language." ( People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218 , 260 Cal. Rptr. 583 , 776 P.2d 285 .) But that rule does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law. ( People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976, fn. 7 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ; People v. Frazer (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1116, fn. 5 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d

2016Where, as here, “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] [A party’s] failure to request any different instructions means he may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 1130-1131; see also Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 990, 1011 [“When a trial court ‘gives a jury instruction which is correct as far as

2000(Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 948 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 603 P.2d 58 ], disapproved on other grounds in White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 574, fn. 4 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 19 , 981 P.2d 944 ].) However, even assuming defendants properly raised the issue of instructional error, we conclude the instructions were correct and did not mislead the jury.

2016(People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 (Saille) [instructions on voluntary intoxication are required to be given upon request when there is evidence supportive of the theory, but they are not required to be given sua sponte].) However, if a court gives such an instruction, it must do so correctly.

2016(People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 , 820 P.2d 588 ] (Saille) [instructions on voluntary intoxication are required to be given upon request when there is evidence supportive of the theory, but they are not required to be given sua sponte].) However, if a court gives such an instruction, it must do so correctly.

2008(E.g., People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569-570 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 , 957 P.2d 928 ]; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 160-161 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ].) *987 (6) As to the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the Supreme Court has held that, when the prosecution relies on that doctrine in proving a defendant's guilt, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the doctrine and the elements of the target offense or offenses. ( Prettyman, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 268-269.) However, this duty only arises when, and only to the extent, there is sufficient evid

2008(E.g., People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569-570 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 , 957 P.2d 928 ]; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 160-161 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ].) *987 (6) As to the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the Supreme Court has held that, when the prosecution relies on that doctrine in proving a defendant's guilt, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the doctrine and the elements of the target offense or offenses. ( Prettyman, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 268-269.) However, this duty only arises when, and only to the extent, there is sufficient evid

2023When “ ‘the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.’ ” (Conservatorship of Gregory (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 514, 520 ; see People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 [“a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court”].) Hill never requested the court specifically instruct the jury on the date of valuation.

2008Searle & Co. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 691, 701-702 , 200 Cal.Rptr. 870 , 677 P.2d 1147 .) "`Instructions in the language of an applicable statute are properly given.' (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Trial, § 280, p. 326.) Where, as here, `the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.' [Citations.]" ( Conservatorship of Gregory (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 514, 520 , 95 Cal. Rptr.2d 336 .) Plaintiffs failure to request any diff

2016Where, as here, “the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] [A party’s] failure to request any different instructions means he may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently. [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 1130-1131; see also Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 990, 1011 [“When a trial court ‘gives a jury instruction which is correct as far as

2000The trial court may not force the litigant to rely on abstract generalities, but must instruct in specific terms that relate the party's theory to the particular case." ( Soide v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) In a civil case, "there ordinarily is no duty to instruct in the absence of a specific request by a party; the exception is a complete failure to instruct on material issues and controlling legal principles which may amount to reversible error." ( Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 951 , 160 *169 Cal.Rptr. 141, 603 P.2d 58 .)

2025(People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949 (Ramirez) [no forfeiture because trial court’s failure to properly instruct the jury on self-defense “affects the defendant’s substantial rights”]; see also People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 [rule of forfeiture “does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law”].) 9 omitted.) The instruction comports with the well-established principle that self-defense “may not be invoked by a defendant who, through his own wrongful conduct (e.g., the initiation of a physical assault or t

2015(People v. Ramirez (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 940, 949 .) 5 Structural error, which is reversible per se, applies only to instructional errors that “‘categorically “‘vitiat[e] all the jury’s findings.’”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 412 .) Omission of the unconsciousness instruction in this case, even if it had been required, would not rise to that level of error. 9 assertion that defendant’s mental disorder prevented him from forming the necessary mental state and intent.

2023(People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1089 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800 .) If the trial court gives an instruction that incorrectly states the law, no objection below is necessary to preserve the claim on appeal to the extent it affects his substantial rights. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 247 ; People v. Lawrence (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 547, 553, fn. 11 [no objection needed to preserve claim of instructional error when it affects substantial rights].) “Instructional error affects a d

2023When “ ‘the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed.’ ” (Conservatorship of Gregory (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 514, 520 ; see People v. Franco (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 713, 719 [“a party forfeits any challenge to a jury instruction that was correct in law and responsive to the evidence if the party fails to object in the trial court”].) Hill never requested the court specifically instruct the jury on the date of valuation.

2023(People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1089 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800 .) If the trial court gives an instruction that incorrectly states the law, no objection below is necessary to preserve the claim on appeal to the extent it affects his substantial rights. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 247 ; People v. Lawrence (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 547, 553, fn. 11 [no objection needed to preserve claim of instructional error when it affects substantial rights].) “Instructional error affects a d

2023(People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1089 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800 .) If the trial court gives an instruction that incorrectly states the law, no objection below is necessary to preserve the claim on appeal to the extent it affects his substantial rights. (§ 1259; People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 ; People v. Prieto (2003) 30 Cal.4th 226, 247 ; People v. Lawrence (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 547, 553, fn. 11 [no objection needed to preserve claim of instructional error when it affects substantial rights].) “Instructional error affects a d

2021Initially, we conclude that defendant did not forfeit this contention by not objecting below. “ ‘Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language.’ (People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218 .) But that rule does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1011-1012 .) We may review any instruction given, “even though no o

2006"Generally, a party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifying or amplifying language." ( People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218 , 260 Cal. Rptr. 583 , 776 P.2d 285 .) But that rule does not apply when, as here, the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law. ( People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976, fn. 7 , 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ; People v. Frazer (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1116, fn. 5 , 131 Cal.Rptr.2d

2021When the court gives an instruction that correctly states a principle of law, but has no application to the facts of the case, reversal is required only if it is reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to the defendant had the error not occurred.4 (People v. Guiton, supra, 4 Cal.4th at pp. 1129– 3 We reject the Attorney General’s suggestion that Solis forfeited this issue by failing to request the court modify the instruction to delete any reference to mutual combat.

2020“A trial court has no sua sponte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citation], and failure to request clarification of an otherwise correct instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal.” (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638 .) “But that rule does not apply when . . . the trial court gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law.” (People v. Hudson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1002, 1012 (Hudson); see also People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1131 [“Trial courts have the duty to screen out invalid theories

2021(People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569 .) We agree with Simpson that the jury instruction, as given, misstated the law. ( Jandres, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 358-359 [the court must instruct the jury on elements of the offense or offenses].) The instruction described the uncharged offense as “showing a nude image to [A.C.].” The uncharged offense, however, was a violation of section 647.6, and the jury instruction made no mention of that provision.

2008(E.g., People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 569-570 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 , 957 P.2d 928 ]; People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 160-161 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ].) *987 (6) As to the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the Supreme Court has held that, when the prosecution relies on that doctrine in proving a defendant's guilt, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the doctrine and the elements of the target offense or offenses. ( Prettyman, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 268-269.) However, this duty only arises when, and only to the extent, there is sufficient evid

2016This limited objection does not bar defendant's present claim, which relates to the trial court's further duty, once it agreed to give the elements instruction, to "instruct sua sponte on legally available defenses." *222 ( People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877 , 942, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.2d 1277 .) In prior decisions, we have assumed without deciding that when the trial court gives an instruction on the elements of section 190.3, factor (b) offenses, those instructions should include any applicable defenses. ( People v. Montiel, supra , 5 Cal.4th at p. 942 , 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.

2016This limited objection does not bar defendant's present claim, which relates to the trial court's further duty, once it agreed to give the elements instruction, to "instruct sua sponte on legally available defenses." *222 ( People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877 , 942, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.2d 1277 .) In prior decisions, we have assumed without deciding that when the trial court gives an instruction on the elements of section 190.3, factor (b) offenses, those instructions should include any applicable defenses. ( People v. Montiel, supra , 5 Cal.4th at p. 942 , 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705 , 855 P.

2016(Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1134 , citing People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1014-1015 .) Because the court here instructed the jury on voluntary intoxication, we will consider whether it did so correctly.

2016(Mendoza, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1134 , citing People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1014-1015 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 648 , 945 P.2d 1197 ].) Because the court here instructed the jury on voluntary intoxication, we will consider whether it did so correctly.

1998Finally, Baker & McKenzie, which not only failed to request clarifying instructions but stipulated to those given, is in no position to claim that the instructions failed adequately to distinguish between the evidence necessary to support each of Weeks's claims. "[I]f the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed." ( Dorsic v. Kurtin (1971) 19 Cal. App.3d 226, 239 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 528 ; and see Finn v. G.D.

1998Finally, Baker & McKenzie, which not only failed to request clarifying instructions but stipulated to those given, is in no position to claim that the instructions failed adequately to distinguish between the evidence necessary to support each of Weeks's claims. "[I]f the court gives an instruction correct in law, but the party complains that it is too general, lacks clarity, or is incomplete, he must request the additional or qualifying instruction in order to have the error reviewed." ( Dorsic v. Kurtin (1971) 19 Cal. App.3d 226, 239 , 96 Cal.Rptr. 528 ; and see Finn v. G.D.