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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2025 6 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. Rossgreen2 sentences2025Even if an instruction correctly states a principle of law, it is error to give an instruction that “has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) As a result, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) In this context, evidence is 5 substantial if it is “sufficient to deserve jury consideration.” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39 .) Thus, “we must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt” that Bryan engage 2023(People v. Guiton 2 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 7 (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) Thus, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 (Ross).) Substantial evidence is “evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to make a determination in accordance with the theory presented under the proper standard of proof.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 (Cole).) “Stated differently, we must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committe | 5 | 6 |
People v. Guitongreen2 sentences2025Even if an instruction correctly states a principle of law, it is error to give an instruction that “has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) As a result, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) In this context, evidence is 5 substantial if it is “sufficient to deserve jury consideration.” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39 .) Thus, “we must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt” that Bryan engage 2023(People v. Guiton 2 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 7 (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) Thus, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 (Ross).) Substantial evidence is “evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to make a determination in accordance with the theory presented under the proper standard of proof.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 (Cole).) “Stated differently, we must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committe | 3 | 6 |
People v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2023(People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852 (Sanchez).) Even if an instruction correctly states a principle of law, if it has no application to the facts of the case, it is an error to offer it. 2022(People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852 .) Even if an instruction correctly states a principle of law, if it has no application to the facts of the case, it is an error to offer it. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Colegreen2 sentences2025(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) At issue is an instruction that limits the right to self-defense. 2023(People v. Guiton 2 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 7 (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) Thus, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 (Ross).) Substantial evidence is “evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to make a determination in accordance with the theory presented under the proper standard of proof.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 (Cole).) “Stated differently, we must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committe | 1 | 2 |
Huffman v. Lindquistgreen2 sentences1968Although this instruction correctly states the rule (Huffman v. Lindquist (1951) 37 Cal.2d 465, 473-475 [ 234 P.2d 34 , 29 A.L.R.2d 485 ]), plaintiffs again argue that its rendition here constituted error because no issue of alternative medical treatment arose. 1968Although this instruction correctly states the rule (Huffman v. Lindquist (1951) 37 Cal.2d 465, 473-475 [ 234 P.2d 34 , 29 A.L.R.2d 485 ]), plaintiffs again argue that its rendition here constituted error because no issue of alternative medical treatment arose. | 1 | 1 |
Hatzakorzian v. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co.green1 sentence1931(Meyers v. Bradford 54 Cal. App. 157 [ 201 Pac. 471 ]; Hatzakorzian v. Rucher-Fuller Desk Co., 197 Cal. 82, 99 [41 A. L. | 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. Cross
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) Thus, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given. [Citation.]” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 (Ross).) “[G]iving an irrelevant or inapplicable instruction, however, is generally “‘only a technical error which does not constitute ground for reversal.’” [Citation.]” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 ; People v. Eulian (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1335 .) “[I]nstruction on an unsupported theory is prejudicial only if that theory became the sole basis of the verdict of guilt[.]” ( Guito 2022(People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) Thus, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given. [Citation.]” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 (Ross).) “[G]iving an irrelevant or inapplicable instruction, however, is generally “‘only a technical error which does not constitute ground for reversal.’” [Citation.]” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 ; People v. Eulian (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1335 .) “[I]nstruction on an unsupported theory is 36 prejudicial only if that theory became the sole basis of the verdict of guilt[.]” ( Guiton, su | 4 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Eulian
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) Thus, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given. [Citation.]” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 (Ross).) “[G]iving an irrelevant or inapplicable instruction, however, is generally “‘only a technical error which does not constitute ground for reversal.’” [Citation.]” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 ; People v. Eulian (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1335 .) “[I]nstruction on an unsupported theory is prejudicial only if that theory became the sole basis of the verdict of guilt[.]” ( Guito 2022(People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) Thus, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given. [Citation.]” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 (Ross).) “[G]iving an irrelevant or inapplicable instruction, however, is generally “‘only a technical error which does not constitute ground for reversal.’” [Citation.]” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 ; People v. Eulian (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1335 .) “[I]nstruction on an unsupported theory is 36 prejudicial only if that theory became the sole basis of the verdict of guilt[.]” ( Guiton, su | 3 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Marshall
green
1 sentence2025Even if an instruction correctly states a principle of law, it is error to give an instruction that “has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) As a result, “instructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) In this context, evidence is 5 substantial if it is “sufficient to deserve jury consideration.” (People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 39 .) Thus, “we must determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt” that Bryan engage | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Meyers v. Bradford
green
2 sentences1931(Meyers v. Bradford 54 Cal. App. 157 [ 201 Pac. 471 ]; Hatzakorzian v. Rucher-Fuller Desk Co., 197 Cal. 82, 99 [41 A. L. 1931(Meyers v. Bradford 54 Cal. App. 157 [ 201 Pac. 471 ]; Hatzakorzian v. Rucher-Fuller Desk Co., 197 Cal. 82, 99 [41 A. L. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.