refusal to give instruction in California

2014(See Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 [“An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority. [Citations.] Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the refusal to give an instruction was error absent an adequate showing that the 27 proposed instruction was proper. [Citation.] . . .

2014Analysis It is well established that “[a]n appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority. [Citations.] Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the refusal to give an instruction was error absent an adequate showing that the proposed instruction was proper. [Citation.]” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 (Bullock.) Richard has not met his burden to show that any of his five proposed special instructions on agency were proper since he does not expressly address the propri

1959Under such circumstances, plaintiff may not complain for it is well settled that "[t] he refusing to give an instruction will not be reviewed by an appellate court unless the record sets forth the requested instruction.” (Thomas v. Laguna, 113 Cal.App.2d 657, 660 [ 248 P.2d 929 ].) In Alexander v. McDonald, 86 Cal.App.2d 670, 671 [ 195 P.2d 24 ], this court stated that "[b] efore alleged error in the refusal to give an instruction will be reviewed on appeal, the record must show, (1) a proper request for such instruction, and (2) the ruling of the trial court refusing to give the requested ins

1959Under such circumstances, plaintiff may not complain for it is well settled that "[t] he refusing to give an instruction will not be reviewed by an appellate court unless the record sets forth the requested instruction.” (Thomas v. Laguna, 113 Cal.App.2d 657, 660 [ 248 P.2d 929 ].) In Alexander v. McDonald, 86 Cal.App.2d 670, 671 [ 195 P.2d 24 ], this court stated that "[b] efore alleged error in the refusal to give an instruction will be reviewed on appeal, the record must show, (1) a proper request for such instruction, and (2) the ruling of the trial court refusing to give the requested ins

1959Under such circumstances, plaintiff may not complain for it is well settled that "[t] he refusing to give an instruction will not be reviewed by an appellate court unless the record sets forth the requested instruction.” (Thomas v. Laguna, 113 Cal.App.2d 657, 660 [ 248 P.2d 929 ].) In Alexander v. McDonald, 86 Cal.App.2d 670, 671 [ 195 P.2d 24 ], this court stated that "[b] efore alleged error in the refusal to give an instruction will be reviewed on appeal, the record must show, (1) a proper request for such instruction, and (2) the ruling of the trial court refusing to give the requested ins

1959Under such circumstances, plaintiff may not complain for it is well settled that "[t] he refusing to give an instruction will not be reviewed by an appellate court unless the record sets forth the requested instruction.” (Thomas v. Laguna, 113 Cal.App.2d 657, 660 [ 248 P.2d 929 ].) In Alexander v. McDonald, 86 Cal.App.2d 670, 671 [ 195 P.2d 24 ], this court stated that "[b] efore alleged error in the refusal to give an instruction will be reviewed on appeal, the record must show, (1) a proper request for such instruction, and (2) the ruling of the trial court refusing to give the requested ins

1961(Doran v. City & County of San Francisco, 44 Cal.2d 477, 487 [ 283 P.2d 1 ] ; Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614, 623 [ 255 P.2d 785 ]; Zanon v. Moher, 136 Cal.App.2d *432 348, 350 [ 288 P.2d 597 ].) On the other hand, if there is not substantial evidence to support any one of those elements, the refusal to give an instruction thereon is proper.

1961(Doran v. City & County of San Francisco, 44 Cal.2d 477, 487 [ 283 P.2d 1 ] ; Daniels v. City & County of San Francisco, 40 Cal.2d 614, 623 [ 255 P.2d 785 ]; Zanon v. Moher, 136 Cal.App.2d *432 348, 350 [ 288 P.2d 597 ].) On the other hand, if there is not substantial evidence to support any one of those elements, the refusal to give an instruction thereon is proper.

1950(Groat v. Walkup Drayage etc. Co., 14 Cal.App.2d 350, 353 [ 58 P.2d 200 ] ; Vedder v. Bireley, 92 Cal.App. 52, 60 [ 267 P. 724 ].) Appellant assigns as error the failure of the court to give four instructions “as to the circumstances under which the defendant was chargeable with the probable consequences of his acts.” 2 He argues that the instructions given did not permit the jury to infer from the circumstances in evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the probable consequences of his acts.

1944(People v. Chatham, 43 Cal.App.2d 298, 301 [ 110 P.2d 704 ]; Dawson v. Lalanne, supra; Anderson v. Walters, 135 Cal.App. 380, 384 [ 27 P.2d 100 ]; Vedder v. Bireley, 92 Cal.App. 52, 59 [267 P.724].) The use of the words “dangerous instrumentality” to characterize an automobile was criticized by the court in passing on the refusal to give an instruction containing those words in Warnke v. Griffith Co., 133 Cal.App. 481, 497-8 [ 24 P.2d 583 ], but the court in that case conceded that “Similar instructions have been by different appellate courts approved as not constituting error” and that “such

1905Indeed, it is held in People v. Ruiz, 144 Cal. 251 , [ 77 Pac. 907 ], and in People v. Wardrip, 141 Cal. 229 , [ 74 Pac. 744 ], that a case should not be- *477 reversed for a refusal to give certain of the cautionary instructions particularly authorized by the subdivisions of said section 2061; and on the authority of those cases it is clear that no material error was committed in the refusal to give the instruction now under discussion.

1905Indeed, it is held in People v. Ruiz, 144 Cal. 251 , [ 77 Pac. 907 ], and in People v. Wardrip, 141 Cal. 229 , [ 74 Pac. 744 ], that a case should not be- *477 reversed for a refusal to give certain of the cautionary instructions particularly authorized by the subdivisions of said section 2061; and on the authority of those cases it is clear that no material error was committed in the refusal to give the instruction now under discussion.

2016Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 80 .) "The giving of an instruction argumentative in form is error [citations], although it is not always cause for reversal. [Citations.] An instruction that goes too elaborately into the particular facts relied on by one of the parties is an argumentative instruction.

2015Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 80 [ 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 ].) Accordingly, appellant has the burden of showing that substantial evidence supports its theory that the sponges were defective when Ruhof placed them on the market.

1956See also People v. Brown, 71 Cal.App. 181, 188 [ 235 P. 72 ], where the court held proper the refusal to give an instruction offered by the defendant in the language of section 2061, subdivision 7, Code of Civil Procedure.

1956See also People v. Brown, 71 Cal.App. 181, 188 [ 235 P. 72 ], where the court held proper the refusal to give an instruction offered by the defendant in the language of section 2061, subdivision 7, Code of Civil Procedure.

1941(Scarborough v. Urgo, 191 Cal. 341 [ 216 P. 584 ]; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195 [ 215 P. 675 ].) Certainly the instruction quoted in the opinion of my associates as justifying the refusal to give the instruction concerning control does not clearly state the rule of law upon which the power company relies.

1941(Scarborough v. Urgo, 191 Cal. 341 [ 216 P. 584 ]; Berkovitz v. American River Gravel Co., 191 Cal. 195 [ 215 P. 675 ].) Certainly the instruction quoted in the opinion of my associates as justifying the refusal to give the instruction concerning control does not clearly state the rule of law upon which the power company relies.

2018On the other hand, evidence and argument on emotional though relevant subjects may provide legitimate reasons to sway the jury to show mercy." We have rejected claims of error based on the refusal to give this instruction or to instruct sua sponte on the proper use of mitigating evidence. ( People v. Russell (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1228 , 1265-1266, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 , 242 P.3d 68 ; Carey , supra , 41 Cal.4th at p. 134, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 172 , 158 P.3d 743 .) We do so again here. 32 The jury was adequately instructed with CALJIC Nos. 8.84.1 and 8.85. b.

2018On the other hand, evidence and argument on emotional though relevant subjects may provide legitimate reasons to sway the jury to show mercy." We have rejected claims of error based on the refusal to give this instruction or to instruct sua sponte on the proper use of mitigating evidence. ( People v. Russell (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1228 , 1265-1266, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 , 242 P.3d 68 ; Carey , supra , 41 Cal.4th at p. 134, 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 172 , 158 P.3d 743 .) We do so again here. 32 The jury was adequately instructed with CALJIC Nos. 8.84.1 and 8.85. b.

2015(Burks v. Blackman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 715 [ 344 P.2d 301 ].)” (Simmons v. Wexler (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 1007, 1012 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 810 ] [trial court did not err in refusing to give contributory negligence instruction because there was no showing of contributory negligence by motorcyclist].) If this latter principle were extended to California’s current comparative fault scheme, it would mean that giving an instruction on comparative negligence where there is no evidence to support it is reversible error.

2015(Burks v. Blackman (1959) 52 Cal.2d 715 [ 344 P.2d 301 ].)” (Simmons v. Wexler (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 1007, 1012 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 810 ] [trial court did not err in refusing to give contributory negligence instruction because there was no showing of contributory negligence by motorcyclist].) If this latter principle were extended to California’s current comparative fault scheme, it would mean that giving an instruction on comparative negligence where there is no evidence to support it is reversible error.

2015Proc., § 607a), and on appeal a party cannot predicate error on a refusal to give an instruction unless the proposed written instruction is made a part of the record (Gaspar v. Georgia Pacific Corp. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 248, 251 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 243 ]).

2015Proc., § 607a), and on appeal a party cannot predicate error on a refusal to give an instruction unless the proposed written instruction is made a part of the record (Gaspar v. Georgia Pacific Corp. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 248, 251 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 243 ]).

2012(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ] (Soule); Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 684 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 775 ] (Bullock)) “A court may refuse a proposed instruction that incorrectly states the law or is argumentative, misleading, or incomprehensible to the average juror, and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction. [Citations.] A court may refuse a proposed instruction if other instructions given adequately cover the legal point. [Citation.]” (Bullock, supra, at pp. 684-685 .) Because an appealed

2012(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ] (Soule); Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 684 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 775 ] (Bullock)) “A court may refuse a proposed instruction that incorrectly states the law or is argumentative, misleading, or incomprehensible to the average juror, and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction. [Citations.] A court may refuse a proposed instruction if other instructions given adequately cover the legal point. [Citation.]” (Bullock, supra, at pp. 684-685 .) Because an appealed

2008(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ]; Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 ].) Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the refusal to give an instruction was error absent an adequate showing that the proposed instruction was proper.

2008(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ]; Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 ].) Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the refusal to give an instruction was error absent an adequate showing that the proposed instruction was proper.

2008(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116 [ 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ]; Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 ].) Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the refusal to give an instruction was error absent an adequate showing that the proposed instruction was proper.

2008(Kritzer v. Citron (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 33, 39 [ 224 P.2d 808 ].) The extent of the showing required to demonstrate error depends on the complexity of the issues presented.

2008(Kritzer v. Citron (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 33, 39 [ 224 P.2d 808 ].) The extent of the showing required to demonstrate error depends on the complexity of the issues presented.

2002You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought in a verdict contrary to the law given you in this case." ( 836 F.2d at p. 1021 [internal quotation marks omitted].) But on appeal, the majority treated the trial court's words as a "refusal to discuss jury nullification with the jury," in other words, a refusal to give an instruction describing their power (or right) to nullify. ( 836 F.2d at p. 1021 .) The dissenter, on the other hand, found it was "simply error" for the trial court to tell "the jury in effect that it had no general authority to veto the prosecution.... [¶] The

2002You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought in a verdict contrary to the law given you in this case." ( 836 F.2d at p. 1021 [internal quotation marks omitted].) But on appeal, the majority treated the trial court's words as a "refusal to discuss jury nullification with the jury," in other words, a refusal to give an instruction describing their power (or right) to nullify. ( 836 F.2d at p. 1021 .) The dissenter, on the other hand, found it was "simply error" for the trial court to tell "the jury in effect that it had no general authority to veto the prosecution.... [¶] The