essential element in one instruction in California

2026Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 .) “ ‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 , citing People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 , disapproved on a different point by People v

2025Viewing this language in the context of the instructions as a whole, we perceive no error. “ ‘[T]he fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial.’ [Citation.] ‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538-539 , disapproved on another ground by People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743 .) Considering the instructions in their entirety,

2026(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.”’” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) “‘“The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cur

2026Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 .) “ ‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 , citing People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 , disapproved on a different point by People v

2026(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.”’” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) “‘“The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cur

2026Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 .) “ ‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 , citing People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 , disapproved on a different point by People v

2022(See People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 328 [“ ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ”]; People v. Kumar (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 557 , 564 (Kumar) [“ ‘Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court's instructions.’ ”].) The attorneys’ arguments further clarified the issue for the jury.

2021The defendant acted with premeditation if he decided to kill before completing the act that caused death.” Read together, these instructions gave the jury the ability to assess the mental disorder evidence on the issue of whether Schmidt premeditated or deliberated. “ ‘ “[T]he fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial.” [Citation.] “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ” (Peo

2026Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 .) “ ‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 , citing People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 , disapproved on a different point by People v

2025(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 (Cole).) “‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.”’” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 . ““‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another o

2020(Cf. People v. Galloway (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 551 , 567–568 [“The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole”].) No further instruction or clarification was required.

2015(See People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409 .) “ ‘Whether a jury has been correctly instructed is not to be determined from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from particular instructions, but from the entire charge of the court.’ ” (People v. Monteverde (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 156, 168 .) Thus, “[t]he absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Galloway (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 551, 567-568 .) We must “assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and 3 The con

2022(See Rivera, at p. 326; People v. Mason (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 818, 825 ; People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 [“ ‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 756 ; People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 830 [“we 24. must look to the entire charge, rather than merely one part, to determine whether error occurred”].) In doing so, we assume that “ ‘ “jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating

2021(See Rivera, at p. 326; People v. Mason (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 818, 825 (Mason); People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 [“ ‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole’ ”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 756 ; People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 830 [“we must look to the entire charge, rather than merely one part, to determine whether error occurred”].) In doing so, we assume that “ ‘ “jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlatin

2015You are not allowed to consider this evidence for any other purpose.” Further, the trial court also told the jury: “The mental states required are included in the definitions of the crimes or circumstance or allegations set forth elsewhere in these instructions.” Defendant argues CALJIC No. 3.32 was deficient “because it did not clearly indicate that evidence of mental defect could be used for the determination of the presence of malice aforethought.” This argument lacks merit. “‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consider

2013A. Applicable Standards ―‗It is well established in California that the correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction. [Citations.] ―[T]he fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial.‖ [Citation.] ―The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.‖ [Citation.]‘ [Cita

2023Defendant’s Claims of Instructional Error Defendant contends the court committed instructional error and violated his due process rights by “failing to include manslaughter in the self-defense instructions” of CALCRIM Nos. 505 and 506. “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ [Citation.] ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ” (People v. Castillo, supra

2021Instructional Review In reviewing a claim of instructional error, we “must consider the jury instructions as a whole, and not judge a single jury instruction in artificial isolation out of the context of the charge and the entire trial record. [Citations.]” (People v. Dieguez (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 266, 276 .) “Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions. [Citations.]” (People v. Sanchez, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 852 .) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of t

2017(People v. Ghebretensae (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 741, 759 .) ‘“‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the [trial] court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’”’ (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .)” (People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 (Fiore).) “‘If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 ; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991)

2016(Id., at pp. 703-704; People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 349 .)” (Id. at p. 462.) “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 192 ; see People v. Thomas (2011) 52 Cal.4th 336, 356 [“A single jury instruction may not be judged in isolation, but must be viewed in the context of all instructions given.”]; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 [An “instruction ‘may not be judged in artificial

2015You are not allowed to consider this evidence for any other purpose.” Further, the trial court also told the jury: “The mental states required are included in the definitions of the crimes or circumstance or allegations set forth elsewhere in these instructions.” Defendant argues CALJIC No. 3.32 was deficient “because it did not clearly indicate that evidence of mental defect could be used for the determination of the presence of malice aforethought.” This argument lacks merit. “‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consider

2009(See, e.g., People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 ].) "`Whether a jury has been correctly instructed is not to be determined from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from particular instructions, but from the entire charge of the court.' [Citation.] Therefore, the fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial." ( People v. Rhodes (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 10, 20 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 249 ].) "The absence of an essential element in one inst

2022In making this determination we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 (Andrade); see also People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 329 (Rivera).) “ ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) 14 Damien Zavala admitted to having friends who were affiliated with a gang and that he previously considered himself as “northern Hispanic” or a “Norther

2022In making this determination we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 (Andrade); see also People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 329 (Rivera).) “ ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) “When a court fails to instruct the jury on an element of an offense, the error violates the federal Constitution because a jury must find the defendant g

2022(Id. at pp. 19−20; see People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218 [“Generally, [however,] 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.”].) “It is well established in California that the correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction. [Citations.] ‘[T]he fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are

2022(Id. at pp. 19−20; see People v. Andrews (1989) 49 Cal.3d 200, 218 [“Generally, [however,] 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.”].) “It is well established in California that the correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction. [Citations.] ‘[T]he fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are

2022In making this determination we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 (Andrade); see also People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 329 (Rivera).) “ ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) 14 Damien Zavala admitted to having friends who were affiliated with a gang and that he previously considered himself as “northern Hispanic” or a “Norther

2022In making this determination we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 (Andrade); see also People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 329 (Rivera).) “ ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) “When a court fails to instruct the jury on an element of an offense, the error violates the federal Constitution because a jury must find the defendant g

2022In making this determination we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 (Andrade); see also People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 329 (Rivera).) “ ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) 14 Damien Zavala admitted to having friends who were affiliated with a gang and that he previously considered himself as “northern Hispanic” or a “Norther

2022In making this determination we consider the specific language under challenge and, if necessary, the instructions as a whole.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 (Andrade); see also People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 329 (Rivera).) “ ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” ’ ” (People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 .) “When a court fails to instruct the jury on an element of an offense, the error violates the federal Constitution because a jury must find the defendant g

2026Martin (1970) 1 Cal.3d 524, 531 .) “ ‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 , citing People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 , disapproved on a different point by People v

2025Viewing this language in the context of the instructions as a whole, we perceive no error. “ ‘[T]he fact that the necessary elements of a jury charge are to be found in two instructions rather than in one instruction does not, in itself, make the charge prejudicial.’ [Citation.] ‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538-539 , disapproved on another ground by People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743 .) Considering the instructions in their entirety,

2026(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.”’” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 .) “‘“The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cur

2025(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 (Cole).) “‘Instructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1112 .) “‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.”’” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 . ““‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another o

2025(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1202–1203.) “ ‘ “ ‘[T]he absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.] ‘Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 .) 3.

2023(See People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1315, fn. 43 .) “We review a claim of instructional error de novo. [Citation.] ‘ “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the [trial] court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 .) “ ‘If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 12

2026Prejudice If we were to assume the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the mens rea required for defendant to be convicted of first degree murder, that error requires reversal only if it was not “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Barrett, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 988.) An “instructional error is harmless when the jury necessarily decides the factual questions posed by the erroneously omitted language adversely to the defendant under other properly given instructions. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) In other words, the “‘“[t]he absence of an essential element in one instruction may be

2021DISCUSSION A. The Jury Instructions Do Not Require Reversal “The trial court is charged with instructing upon every theory of the case supported by substantial evidence . . . .” (People v. Montoya (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1027, 1047 .) “‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’” (People v. Delgado (2017) 2 Cal.5th 544, 574 .) The “‘“absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.”’”

2025(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149 , 1202–1203.) “ ‘ “ ‘[T]he absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.’ [Citation.]” ’ [Citation.] ‘Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 .) 3.

2023(See People v. Lewis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1255, 1315, fn. 43 .) “We review a claim of instructional error de novo. [Citation.] ‘ “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the [trial] court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Fiore (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1378 .) “ ‘If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 12

2022(See Rivera, at p. 326; People v. Mason (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 818, 825 ; People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 [“ ‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.’ ”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 756 ; People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 830 [“we 24. must look to the entire charge, rather than merely one part, to determine whether error occurred”].) In doing so, we assume that “ ‘ “jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating

2021(See Rivera, at p. 326; People v. Mason (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 818, 825 (Mason); People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 [“ ‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole’ ”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 756 ; People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 830 [“we must look to the entire charge, rather than merely one part, to determine whether error occurred”].) In doing so, we assume that “ ‘ “jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlatin

2014"As we said in People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 , '"[T]he correctness of jury instructions 6 is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.''' (Quoting People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 ; id. at p. 539 ['"The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole."']; see also People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 830 ['We must look to the entire charge, rather than merely one part, to determine whethe

1998As we said in People v. Castillo (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1009, 1016 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 648 , 945 P.2d 1197 ], “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ ” (Quoting People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 538 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ]; id. at p. 539 [“ ‘The absence of an essential element in one instruction may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.’”]; see also People v. Chavez (1985) 39 Cal.3d 823, 830 [ 218 Cal.R