instruction highlighting defense (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

instruction highlighting defense in California

8 California opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Gonzalesgreen
cal · 2012 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2022
2 sentences

2022The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is “duplicative or potentially confusing.” (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1276 .) “[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is properly refused.” (People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 857 ; see e.g., People v. Gonzales, supra, at p. 1276 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury that “ ‘a person is not guilty of murder simply because he or she failed to stop someone else from committing

2022The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is “duplicative or potentially confusing.” (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1276 .) “[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is properly refused.” (People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 857 ; see e.g., People v. Gonzales, supra, at p. 1276 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury that “ ‘a person is not guilty of murder simply because he or she failed to stop someone else from committing

44
People v. Dieguezgreen
calctapp · 2001 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2022
2 sentences

2022The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is “duplicative or potentially confusing.” (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1276 .) “[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is properly refused.” (People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 857 ; see e.g., People v. Gonzales, supra, at p. 1276 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury that “ ‘a person is not guilty of murder simply because he or she failed to stop someone else from committing

2017The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is "duplicative or potentially confusing." ( People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234 , 1276, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 757 , 281 P.3d 834 .) "[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is properly refused." ( People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832 , 857, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 565 ; see e.g., People v. Gonzales, supra, at p. 1276 , 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 757 , 281 P.3d 834 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury that " 'a p

44
People v. Mora & Rangelgreen
cal · 2018 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022(People v. Mora and Rangel, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 497.) Without deciding whether the proposed instruction was a correct statement of law, we find there was no substantial evidence to support such a pinpoint instruction.

11
People v. Martingreen
calctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016(People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 .) The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is “duplicative or potentially confusing.” (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1276 .) “[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is 9 properly refused.” (People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 857 ; see, e.g., People v. Gonzales, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1276 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury that “a person is not guilty of murder simply

11
People v. Moongreen
cal · 2005 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012(People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894 , 117 P.3d 591 ].) Here, the jury was instructed that “mere presence at the scene of a crime which does not itself assist the commission of the crime does not amount to aiding and abetting.

2012(People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894 , 117 P.3d 591 ].) Here, the jury was instructed that “mere presence at the scene of a crime which does not itself assist the commission of the crime does not amount to aiding and abetting.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Canizalez green
calctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2022The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is “duplicative or potentially confusing.” (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1276 .) “[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is properly refused.” (People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 857 ; see e.g., People v. Gonzales, supra, at p. 1276 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury that “ ‘a person is not guilty of murder simply because he or she failed to stop someone else from committing

2017The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is "duplicative or potentially confusing." ( People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234 , 1276, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 757 , 281 P.3d 834 .) "[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is properly refused." ( People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832 , 857, 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 565 ; see e.g., People v. Gonzales, supra, at p. 1276 , 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 757 , 281 P.3d 834 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury that " 'a p

42016–2022
People v. Jo green
calctapp · 2017
2 sentences

2025(Jo, supra, 15 Cal.App.5th at p. 1174 .) “The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is ‘duplicative or potentially confusing.’ [Citation.] ‘[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is properly refused.’ [Citations.] Put another way, ‘[t]here is no error in a trial court’s failing or refusing to instruct on one matter, unless the remaining instructions, considered as a whole, fail to cover the material issues raised at trial.’” (Ibid.) Here, the trial court proper

2025Pinpoint Instructions and Standard of Review “Pinpoint instructions ‘ “relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or ‘pinpoint’ the crux of a defendant’s case.” ’ [Citation.] ‘Upon proper request, a defendant has a right to an instruction pinpointing the theory of defense . . . if the theory proffered by the defendant is supported by substantial evidence’ [citation], the instruction is a correct statement of law [citation], and the proposed instruction does not simply highlight specific evidence the defendant wishes the jury to consider.” (People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 117

32021–2025
People v. Brugman green
calctapp · 2021
1 sentence

2025Pinpoint Instructions and Standard of Review “Pinpoint instructions ‘ “relate particular facts to a legal issue in the case or ‘pinpoint’ the crux of a defendant’s case.” ’ [Citation.] ‘Upon proper request, a defendant has a right to an instruction pinpointing the theory of defense . . . if the theory proffered by the defendant is supported by substantial evidence’ [citation], the instruction is a correct statement of law [citation], and the proposed instruction does not simply highlight specific evidence the defendant wishes the jury to consider.” (People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 117

12025–2025
People v. Posey green
cal · 2004
1 sentence

2021(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) The trial court instructed the jury on the definition of duress, which includes a list of what does qualify as duress, e.g., an implied threat of danger.

12021–2021
People v. Wright green
cal · 1988
1 sentence

2016(People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 .) The trial court may properly refuse an instruction highlighting a defense theory if it is “duplicative or potentially confusing.” (People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234, 1276 .) “[W]here standard instructions fully and adequately advise the jury upon a particular issue, a pinpoint instruction on that point is 9 properly refused.” (People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 857 ; see, e.g., People v. Gonzales, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1276 [trial court did not err in refusing to instruct jury that “a person is not guilty of murder simply

12016–2016

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check