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 1975–2025 1 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. Watsongreen2 sentences2013However, even if a unanimity instruction was required, the failure to give such an instruction was harmless error under either Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).2 Shannon testified to three forcible rapes and two forcible oral copulations. 1986(See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ].) In light of victim Castro's positive identification of defendant and the additional circumstantial evidence of defendant's guilt set *695 forth above, it is quite unlikely that the jury would have accepted an alibi defense. 3. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2025For example, the jury could have found S.S. credible about being punched but not about being hit with the glass jar, or vice versa.” Again, we are not persuaded. 6 In People v. Leuth, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 189 , the Court of Appeal observed that the “ ‘continuous-course-of-conduct exception’ . . . is a catch-all 8 Cal.App.5th 730, 738 [failure to give unanimity instruction harmless where “victim’s testimony, once credited by the jury, necessarily establishe[d]” that defendant committed two offenses and defendant “identifie[d] no basis on which a rational juror could conclude that she was bein | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Hernandezgreen1 sentence2025For example, the jury could have found S.S. credible about being punched but not about being hit with the glass jar, or vice versa.” Again, we are not persuaded. 6 In People v. Leuth, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 189 , the Court of Appeal observed that the “ ‘continuous-course-of-conduct exception’ . . . is a catch-all 8 Cal.App.5th 730, 738 [failure to give unanimity instruction harmless where “victim’s testimony, once credited by the jury, necessarily establishe[d]” that defendant committed two offenses and defendant “identifie[d] no basis on which a rational juror could conclude that she was bein | 1 | 1 |
People v. Speaksgreen1 sentence2015“The testimony of a single witness, including the defendant, can constitute substantial evidence requiring the court to instruct on its own initiative.” (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646 ; accord, People v. Speaks (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 36, 40 .) Nevertheless, we conclude failure to give the instruction was harmless error. 8 B. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Milgreen1 sentence2014Omitting a jury instruction does not rise to the level of structural error where the “omission ‘neither wholly withdrew from jury consideration substantially all of the elements . . . , nor so vitiated all of the jury’s findings as to effectively deny defendant[] a jury trial altogether.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 415 (Mil).) Here, the jury considered and resolved under other instructions several of the gang murder special circumstance elements, including whether Gray intentionally killed the victim and whether Gray actively participated in a criminal street gang at th | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared1 sentence2013However, even if a unanimity instruction was required, the failure to give such an instruction was harmless error under either Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).2 Shannon testified to three forcible rapes and two forcible oral copulations. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Marquezgreen2 sentences1993Trial courts must instruct sua sponte on “general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts of the case.” (People v. *121 Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 822 P.2d 418 ]; People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ].) “An extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed by an identification at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime.” 3 (People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 631 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 ].) 1993Trial courts must instruct sua sponte on “general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts of the case.” (People v. *121 Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 822 P.2d 418 ]; People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ].) “An extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed by an identification at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime.” 3 (People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 631 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sedenogreen2 sentences1993Trial courts must instruct sua sponte on “general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts of the case.” (People v. *121 Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 822 P.2d 418 ]; People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ].) “An extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed by an identification at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime.” 3 (People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 631 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 ].) 1993Trial courts must instruct sua sponte on “general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts of the case.” (People v. *121 Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 822 P.2d 418 ]; People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ].) “An extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed by an identification at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime.” 3 (People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 631 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gouldgreen1 sentence1993Trial courts must instruct sua sponte on “general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts of the case.” (People v. *121 Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 822 P.2d 418 ]; People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ].) “An extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed by an identification at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime.” 3 (People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 631 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 ].) | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences1975(See People v. Hernandez (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 651, 659-660 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 71 ]; People v. Sutton (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 708 -712 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 23 ]; cf. People v. Cady (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 189, 193-194 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 772 ] (concurring opn.).) We cannot in the instant case attribute probable prejudice to the omission of the cautionary instruction. 1975(See People v. Hernandez (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 651, 659-660 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 71 ]; People v. Sutton (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 708 -712 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 23 ]; cf. People v. Cady (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 189, 193-194 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 772 ] (concurring opn.).) We cannot in the instant case attribute probable prejudice to the omission of the cautionary instruction. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Merriamgreen1 sentence1975“The circumstances of each case” must be reviewed on appeal to “determine whether failure to give the instruction was prejudicial.” (People v. Nye, supra, 38 Cal.2d at p. 40 .) Such failure “does not constitute prejudicial error if ‘the evidence clearly points to the defendant’s guilt, or . . . the testimony of the prosecuting witness is amply corroborated, or there are other factors in the case which show that the defendant has been given a fair trial.’ ” (People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d at p. 395.) Under this standard, a finding that failure to give the instruction was harmless error has | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cadygreen2 sentences1975(See People v. Hernandez (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 651, 659-660 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 71 ]; People v. Sutton (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 708 -712 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 23 ]; cf. People v. Cady (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 189, 193-194 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 772 ] (concurring opn.).) We cannot in the instant case attribute probable prejudice to the omission of the cautionary instruction. 1975(See People v. Hernandez (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 651, 659-660 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 71 ]; People v. Sutton (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 708 -712 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 23 ]; cf. People v. Cady (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 189, 193-194 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 772 ] (concurring opn.).) We cannot in the instant case attribute probable prejudice to the omission of the cautionary instruction. | 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. Williams
green
1 sentence2025(People v. Williams, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 682 .) Or, to put it differently, any failure to give such an instruction was harmless error.6 (See, e.g., People v. Fish (2024) 102 4 On reply, after acknowledging the exception for acts that form one transaction for the first time, Cox simply asserts that it does not apply because the “acts occurred in different locations within the RV and were separated by time.” We are not persuaded. 5 Cox’s reply brief simply asserts, without explanation or citation to authority, that “[w]hile [Cox] generally attacked S.S.’s credibility, the jury could have bel | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lueth
green
2 sentences2025For example, the jury could have found S.S. credible about being punched but not about being hit with the glass jar, or vice versa.” Again, we are not persuaded. 6 In People v. Leuth, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 189 , the Court of Appeal observed that the “ ‘continuous-course-of-conduct exception’ . . . is a catch-all 8 Cal.App.5th 730, 738 [failure to give unanimity instruction harmless where “victim’s testimony, once credited by the jury, necessarily establishe[d]” that defendant committed two offenses and defendant “identifie[d] no basis on which a rational juror could conclude that she was bein 2025For example, the jury could have found S.S. credible about being punched but not about being hit with the glass jar, or vice versa.” Again, we are not persuaded. 6 In People v. Leuth, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th 189 , the Court of Appeal observed that the “ ‘continuous-course-of-conduct exception’ . . . is a catch-all 8 Cal.App.5th 730, 738 [failure to give unanimity instruction harmless where “victim’s testimony, once credited by the jury, necessarily establishe[d]” that defendant committed two offenses and defendant “identifie[d] no basis on which a rational juror could conclude that she was bein | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Breverman
green
2 sentences2015Harmless Error In Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th 142 , the Supreme Court adopted the Watson2 standard of review regarding instructional error as to lesser included offenses. 2015Harmless Error In Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th 142 , the Supreme Court adopted the Watson2 standard of review regarding instructional error as to lesser included offenses. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2015“The testimony of a single witness, including the defendant, can constitute substantial evidence requiring the court to instruct on its own initiative.” (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646 ; accord, People v. Speaks (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 36, 40 .) Nevertheless, we conclude failure to give the instruction was harmless error. 8 B. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Gould
green
2 sentences1993Trial courts must instruct sua sponte on “general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts of the case.” (People v. *121 Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 822 P.2d 418 ]; People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ].) “An extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed by an identification at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime.” 3 (People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 631 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 ].) 1993Trial courts must instruct sua sponte on “general principles of law that are closely and openly connected with the facts of the case.” (People v. *121 Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 710 , 822 P.2d 418 ]; People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 518 P.2d 913 ].) “An extrajudicial identification that cannot be confirmed by an identification at the trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime.” 3 (People v. Gould (1960) 54 Cal.2d 621, 631 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 273 , 354 P.2d 865 ].) | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Rincon-Pineda
green
1 sentence1986In People v. Rincon-Pineda, supra, 14 Cal.3d 864, 872 , the Supreme Court summarized the governing law: “It is well established that the error in failing to give the cautionary instruction is not prejudicial per se. ‘The circumstances of each case’ must be reviewed on appeal to ‘determine whether failure to give the instruction was prejudicial.’ [Citation.] Such failure ‘does not constitute prejudicial error if “the evidence clearly points to the defendant’s guilt, or . . . the testimony of the prosecuting witness is amply corroborated, or there are other factors in the case which show that th | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. McIntyre
green
1 sentence1986(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [ 299 P.2d 243 ]; People v. McIntyre, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d 899, 907 .) The victim’s testimony was corroborated by Wells’ identification and the blood test results. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Nye
green
1 sentence1975“The circumstances of each case” must be reviewed on appeal to “determine whether failure to give the instruction was prejudicial.” (People v. Nye, supra, 38 Cal.2d at p. 40 .) Such failure “does not constitute prejudicial error if ‘the evidence clearly points to the defendant’s guilt, or . . . the testimony of the prosecuting witness is amply corroborated, or there are other factors in the case which show that the defendant has been given a fair trial.’ ” (People v. Merriam, supra, 66 Cal.2d at p. 395.) Under this standard, a finding that failure to give the instruction was harmless error has | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Sutton
green
2 sentences1975(See People v. Hernandez (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 651, 659-660 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 71 ]; People v. Sutton (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 708 -712 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 23 ]; cf. People v. Cady (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 189, 193-194 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 772 ] (concurring opn.).) We cannot in the instant case attribute probable prejudice to the omission of the cautionary instruction. 1975(See People v. Hernandez (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 651, 659-660 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 71 ]; People v. Sutton (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 708 -712 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 23 ]; cf. People v. Cady (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 189, 193-194 [ 72 Cal.Rptr. 772 ] (concurring opn.).) We cannot in the instant case attribute probable prejudice to the omission of the cautionary instruction. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.