9 California opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 4 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. Smitheygreen1 sentence2025(People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 976, fn. 7 .) In any event, counsel need not object to an instruction when a defendant’s substantial rights are at issue. (§ 1259.) We therefore consider the issue on the merits. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillgreen1 sentence2022“The trial atmosphere was not poisonous, defense counsel did not object at all, and the record fails to suggest that any objections would have been futile.” (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1213 ; accord, People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800 , 820–821.) Appellant “fails to show how objecting would have been futile under the circumstances of this trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hillhousegreen2 sentences2005We conclude that because the atmosphere of the trial was “not poisonous” (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 502 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45 , 40 P.3d 754 ]), defendant failed to object at all (even after the arguments), and the record fails to show that objections would have been futile, the normal rule requiring an objection to preserve a claim on appeal applies. 2005We conclude that because the atmosphere of the trial was “not poisonous” (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 502 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45 , 40 P.3d 754 ]), defendant failed to object at all (even after the arguments), and the record fails to show that objections would have been futile, the normal rule requiring an objection to preserve a claim on appeal applies. | 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. Scott
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 353 .) Appellant’s arguments in his memorandum and at the hearing were sufficient to meet this objective. 3. 2014(People v. Scott, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 353 .) Appellant’s arguments in his memorandum and at the hearing were sufficient to meet this objective. 3. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Seijas
green
2 sentences2025The appellate court may also review any instruction given, refused or modified, even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.” (Italics added.) We have explained that section 1259 cannot be invoked to raise for the first time on appeal a claim of erroneous admission of evidence when no objection was made in the trial court: “This section distinguishes claims of instructional error, which may be asserted even without objection if they affect the defendant’s substantial rights, from other claims of error, which req 2025The appellate court may also review any instruction given, refused or modified, even though no objection was made thereto in the lower court, if the substantial rights of the defendant were affected thereby.” (Italics added.) We have explained that section 1259 cannot be invoked to raise for the first time on appeal a claim of erroneous admission of evidence when no objection was made in the trial court: “This section distinguishes claims of instructional error, which may be asserted even without objection if they affect the defendant’s substantial rights, from other claims of error, which req | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Townsel
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Townsel, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 58 .) A claim that an instruction is incorrect in law does not require an objection to preserve a challenge on appeal. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Riel
green
1 sentence2022“The trial atmosphere was not poisonous, defense counsel did not object at all, and the record fails to suggest that any objections would have been futile.” (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1213 ; accord, People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800 , 820–821.) Appellant “fails to show how objecting would have been futile under the circumstances of this trial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Lara
green
1 sentence2013The differing case cited by Alvarez, People v. Lara (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 658 , addressed a different issue, the requirement for an objection to preserve a claim that the court failed to give a corpus delicti instruction. | 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.
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.