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.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2021 2 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. Quachgreen2 sentences2015(Vasquez, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 1179, fn. 2 ; Quach, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 [federal constitutional error in instructions where “[w]e cannot be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no jury could have adopted Quach’s version of the facts”].)2 2 Our dissenting colleague concludes CALCRIM No. 3472 as given correctly precludes CALCRIM No. 3471’s lethal escalation defense because a defendant is “not permitted to assert the right of self defense if [he] initially engaged in that activity for the purpose of contriving the opportunity to engage in further violence in response to [ 2015(Vasquez, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 1179, fn. 2 ; Quach, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 [federal constitutional error in instructions where “[w]e cannot be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no jury could have adopted Quach’s version of the facts”].)2 2 Our dissenting colleague concludes CALCRIM No. 3472 as given correctly precludes CALCRIM No. 3471’s lethal escalation defense because a defendant is “not permitted to assert the right of self defense if [he] initially engaged in that activity for the purpose of contriving the opportunity to engage in further violence in response to [ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vasquezgreen1 sentence2015(Vasquez, supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 1179, fn. 2 ; Quach, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 304 [federal constitutional error in instructions where “[w]e cannot be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no jury could have adopted Quach’s version of the facts”].)2 2 Our dissenting colleague concludes CALCRIM No. 3472 as given correctly precludes CALCRIM No. 3471’s lethal escalation defense because a defendant is “not permitted to assert the right of self defense if [he] initially engaged in that activity for the purpose of contriving the opportunity to engage in further violence in response to [ | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2013This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." (CALCRIM No. 505.) "The trial court's instructions assumed that defendant had not lost [the right of self defense]." (People v. Johnson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 702, 711 .) The 25 pivotal question for the jury, if they believed appellants acted in self defense (or imperfect self defense), was whether appellants exercised that right in a reasonable manner. 2013(See People v. Johnson, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 711 [Where court instructed jury with CALCRIM Nos. 3472 and 505, it was unnecessary to instruct with CALCRIM No. 3471.)12 For the same reasons, the court properly would have refused a request by defense counsel to give such an instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2013(People v. Minifie, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 1064-1065, see also People v. Pena (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 462, 476 .) However, “any right of self defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.] The right of self defense did not provide defendant with any justification or excuse for using deadly force to repel a nonlethal attack.” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 966 , overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459, 462 .) On the other hand, if there is evidence of any “circumstance which may be reason | 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. . Minifie
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1064 .) The right of self- defense is limited to the use of force that itself is reasonable under the circumstances. 2020(People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1064 .) The right of self- defense is limited to the use of force that itself is reasonable under the circumstances. | 3 | 2013–2021 |
People v. Pinholster
green
2 sentences2014Our Supreme Court has instructed, “[A]ny right of self-defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.] The right of self- defense [does] not provide defendant with any justification or excuse for using deadly force to repel a nonlethal attack.” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 966 .) This is because “[t]he principles of self-defense are founded in the doctrine of necessity. 2013(People v. Minifie, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 1064-1065, see also People v. Pena (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 462, 476 .) However, “any right of self defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.] The right of self defense did not provide defendant with any justification or excuse for using deadly force to repel a nonlethal attack.” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 966 , overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459, 462 .) On the other hand, if there is evidence of any “circumstance which may be reason | 2 | 2013–2014 |
People v. Pruett
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967 , 982– 983.) The optional part of CALCRIM No. 3470 stating that a defendant is not required to retreat informs a jury “that in the exercise of the right of self- defense a person under assault or threat of attack need not retreat.” (People v. Pruett (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 77, 89 .) The “no duty to retreat” instruction only applies when a defendant is under assault or threat of attack and exercising his right of self-defense. (1 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2020) Defenses, § 77.) Defendant argues that the evidence “established [defendant] sought to re | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Salas
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Salas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 967 , 982– 983.) The optional part of CALCRIM No. 3470 stating that a defendant is not required to retreat informs a jury “that in the exercise of the right of self- defense a person under assault or threat of attack need not retreat.” (People v. Pruett (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 77, 89 .) The “no duty to retreat” instruction only applies when a defendant is under assault or threat of attack and exercising his right of self-defense. (1 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2020) Defenses, § 77.) Defendant argues that the evidence “established [defendant] sought to re | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Ramirez
green
1 sentence2016The blanket rule articulated in CALCRIM No. 3472 and reiterated by the prosecutor effectively told the jury, ‘A person does not have [any] right to self-defense if he provokes a fight or quarrel with the intent to create an excuse to use [any] force.’ In effect, the prosecutor and the trial court advised the jury that one who provokes a fistfight forfeits the right of self- defense if the adversary resorts to deadly force.” (Ramirez, supra, 233 Cal.App. at p. 947.) Under the facts in Ramirez, “the instruction made no allowance for an intent to use only nondeadly force and an adversary's sudden | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Perez
green
1 sentence2015When that danger has passed and the attacker has withdrawn, there can be no justification for the use of further force. [Citations.]” ( Perez, supra, at p. 236 .) Here, the prosecutor’s comments that self-defense required the same engagement or that the engagement ended were part of the prosecutor’s overall argument defendant could not rely on self-defense because his attackers withdrew and he no longer faced imminent danger. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Pena
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Minifie, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 1064-1065, see also People v. Pena (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 462, 476 .) However, “any right of self defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.] The right of self defense did not provide defendant with any justification or excuse for using deadly force to repel a nonlethal attack.” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 966 , overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459, 462 .) On the other hand, if there is evidence of any “circumstance which may be reason | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Collins
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Minifie, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 1064-1065, see also People v. Pena (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 462, 476 .) However, “any right of self defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.] The right of self defense did not provide defendant with any justification or excuse for using deadly force to repel a nonlethal attack.” (People v. Pinholster (1992) 1 Cal.4th 865, 966 , overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459, 462 .) On the other hand, if there is evidence of any “circumstance which may be reason | 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.