jury constitutes prejudicial error in California

1957But it is also true that “the circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” (People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ].) It is the further rule that “among those matters necessitating a specific request for instruction on the part of a defendant is an instruction as to lesser degrees of the crime charged.” (People v. Dozier, 35 Cal.App.2d 49, 60 [ 94 P.2d 598 ].) It follows that in the present case, the jury being fully and fairly instructed on the general principles of law pertinent to the case, the defendant cann

1957But it is also true that “the circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” (People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ].) It is the further rule that “among those matters necessitating a specific request for instruction on the part of a defendant is an instruction as to lesser degrees of the crime charged.” (People v. Dozier, 35 Cal.App.2d 49, 60 [ 94 P.2d 598 ].) It follows that in the present case, the jury being fully and fairly instructed on the general principles of law pertinent to the case, the defendant cann

1948None was requested by the defendant and while such an instruction should have been given (People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 888, 889 [ 129 P.2d 367 ]), it was said in that case at page 892: “The circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” In People v. Lucas, 16 Cal.2d 178, 182 [ 105 P.2d 102 , 130 A.L.R. 1485 ], the court said: ‘ ‘ The authorities are legion to the effect that before a judgment may be reversed because of error it must appear from the record that it was prejudicial and caused *270 substantial injury and that a

1948None was requested by the defendant and while such an instruction should have been given (People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 888, 889 [ 129 P.2d 367 ]), it was said in that case at page 892: “The circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” In People v. Lucas, 16 Cal.2d 178, 182 [ 105 P.2d 102 , 130 A.L.R. 1485 ], the court said: ‘ ‘ The authorities are legion to the effect that before a judgment may be reversed because of error it must appear from the record that it was prejudicial and caused *270 substantial injury and that a

1966The guiding rule is stated thus: ‘ ‘ ‘ The circumstances of the case determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’ ” (People v. Baker, 42 Cal.2d 550, 576 [ 268 P.2d 705 ].) Where the evidence is such that a jury might have based its verdict of guilty solely upon possession of a quantity of a narcotic so minute as to lack as a matter of law any potential for narcotic use, the court has the duty to instruct the jury that they may not base a finding of guilt on the sole possession of such minute quantity.

1966The guiding rule is stated thus: ‘ ‘ ‘ The circumstances of the case determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’ ” (People v. Baker, 42 Cal.2d 550, 576 [ 268 P.2d 705 ].) Where the evidence is such that a jury might have based its verdict of guilty solely upon possession of a quantity of a narcotic so minute as to lack as a matter of law any potential for narcotic use, the court has the duty to instruct the jury that they may not base a finding of guilt on the sole possession of such minute quantity.

1957But it is also true that “the circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” (People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ].) It is the further rule that “among those matters necessitating a specific request for instruction on the part of a defendant is an instruction as to lesser degrees of the crime charged.” (People v. Dozier, 35 Cal.App.2d 49, 60 [ 94 P.2d 598 ].) It follows that in the present case, the jury being fully and fairly instructed on the general principles of law pertinent to the case, the defendant cann

1957But it is also true that “the circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” (People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ].) It is the further rule that “among those matters necessitating a specific request for instruction on the part of a defendant is an instruction as to lesser degrees of the crime charged.” (People v. Dozier, 35 Cal.App.2d 49, 60 [ 94 P.2d 598 ].) It follows that in the present case, the jury being fully and fairly instructed on the general principles of law pertinent to the case, the defendant cann

1954The circumstances of the ease determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’'’ (.People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 890, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ] ; see, also, People v. Warren, 16 Cal.2d" 103, 117 [ 104 P.2d 1024 ] ; People v. Holt, 25 Cal.2d 59, 64 [ 153 P.2d 21 ]; People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 176 [ 163 P.2d 8 ].) A proper consideration of the issues developed through the presentation of the evidence at the trial of this case required that the jury be instructed on the possible effect of voluntary intoxication on the state of mind with which defendant did the

1954The circumstances of the ease determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’'’ (.People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 890, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ] ; see, also, People v. Warren, 16 Cal.2d" 103, 117 [ 104 P.2d 1024 ] ; People v. Holt, 25 Cal.2d 59, 64 [ 153 P.2d 21 ]; People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 176 [ 163 P.2d 8 ].) A proper consideration of the issues developed through the presentation of the evidence at the trial of this case required that the jury be instructed on the possible effect of voluntary intoxication on the state of mind with which defendant did the

1954The circumstances of the ease determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’'’ (.People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 890, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ] ; see, also, People v. Warren, 16 Cal.2d" 103, 117 [ 104 P.2d 1024 ] ; People v. Holt, 25 Cal.2d 59, 64 [ 153 P.2d 21 ]; People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 176 [ 163 P.2d 8 ].) A proper consideration of the issues developed through the presentation of the evidence at the trial of this case required that the jury be instructed on the possible effect of voluntary intoxication on the state of mind with which defendant did the

1954The circumstances of the ease determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’'’ (.People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 890, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ] ; see, also, People v. Warren, 16 Cal.2d" 103, 117 [ 104 P.2d 1024 ] ; People v. Holt, 25 Cal.2d 59, 64 [ 153 P.2d 21 ]; People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 176 [ 163 P.2d 8 ].) A proper consideration of the issues developed through the presentation of the evidence at the trial of this case required that the jury be instructed on the possible effect of voluntary intoxication on the state of mind with which defendant did the

1954(People v. Sanchez, 35 Cal.2d 522, 527-529 [ 219 P.2d 9 ].) Moreover, this is not a case where there was a complete failure to instruct, but a case where partial instructions were given and, as given, were erroneous.

1954(People v. Sanchez, 35 Cal.2d 522, 527-529 [ 219 P.2d 9 ].) Moreover, this is not a case where there was a complete failure to instruct, but a case where partial instructions were given and, as given, were erroneous.

1954The circumstances of the ease determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’'’ (.People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 890, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ] ; see, also, People v. Warren, 16 Cal.2d" 103, 117 [ 104 P.2d 1024 ] ; People v. Holt, 25 Cal.2d 59, 64 [ 153 P.2d 21 ]; People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 176 [ 163 P.2d 8 ].) A proper consideration of the issues developed through the presentation of the evidence at the trial of this case required that the jury be instructed on the possible effect of voluntary intoxication on the state of mind with which defendant did the

1946See, also, People v. Dail, 22 Cal.2d 642, 655-656 [ 140 P.2d 828 ].) However, as the court in the Putnam case observed: “The circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” (People v. Putnam, supra, at p. 892 .) Prom this it follows that such failure is not error if, as in the Lucas case, the evidence clearly *170 points to the defendant’s guilt, or, as in People v. Fleming, 58 Cal.App.2d 37, 47-48 [ 136 P.2d 88 ], the testimony of the prosecuting witness is amply corroborated, or there are other factors in the case which show t

1946See, also, People v. Dail, 22 Cal.2d 642, 655-656 [ 140 P.2d 828 ].) However, as the court in the Putnam case observed: “The circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” (People v. Putnam, supra, at p. 892 .) Prom this it follows that such failure is not error if, as in the Lucas case, the evidence clearly *170 points to the defendant’s guilt, or, as in People v. Fleming, 58 Cal.App.2d 37, 47-48 [ 136 P.2d 88 ], the testimony of the prosecuting witness is amply corroborated, or there are other factors in the case which show t

1946(People v. Stangler, 18 Cal.2d 688, 694 [ 117 P.2d 321 ].) Such is the situation in the present case.

1946(People v. Stangler, 18 Cal.2d 688, 694 [ 117 P.2d 321 ].) Such is the situation in the present case.

1946See, also, People v. Dail, 22 Cal.2d 642, 655-656 [ 140 P.2d 828 ].) However, as the court in the Putnam case observed: “The circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” (People v. Putnam, supra, at p. 892 .) Prom this it follows that such failure is not error if, as in the Lucas case, the evidence clearly *170 points to the defendant’s guilt, or, as in People v. Fleming, 58 Cal.App.2d 37, 47-48 [ 136 P.2d 88 ], the testimony of the prosecuting witness is amply corroborated, or there are other factors in the case which show t

1946See, also, People v. Dail, 22 Cal.2d 642, 655-656 [ 140 P.2d 828 ].) However, as the court in the Putnam case observed: “The circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.” (People v. Putnam, supra, at p. 892 .) Prom this it follows that such failure is not error if, as in the Lucas case, the evidence clearly *170 points to the defendant’s guilt, or, as in People v. Fleming, 58 Cal.App.2d 37, 47-48 [ 136 P.2d 88 ], the testimony of the prosecuting witness is amply corroborated, or there are other factors in the case which show t

1945As was said in People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ], relied upon by appellant ‘The circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’ ” Cases in harmony with this statement are cited in People v. Roberts, 50 Cal.App.2d 558, 568 [ 123 P.2d 628 ].

1945As was said in People v. Putnam, 20 Cal.2d 885, 892 [ 129 P.2d 367 ], relied upon by appellant ‘The circumstances of the case must determine whether the failure to instruct the jury constitutes prejudicial error.’ ” Cases in harmony with this statement are cited in People v. Roberts, 50 Cal.App.2d 558, 568 [ 123 P.2d 628 ].