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 1989–2022 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Carreragreen2 sentences2022(People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 .) That is because “[e]ven absent a request, the court should give the instruction ‘where the circumstances of the case so dictate.’ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 311, fn. 8 .) We review de novo a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury. 2021(People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 311, fn. 8 (Carrera).) “Even absent a request, the court should give the instruction ‘where the circumstances of the case so dictate.’ ” (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 .) Appellate courts review de novo whether the trial court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Andersongreen1 sentence2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mirandagreen1 sentence2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin | 1 | 1 |
People v. Marshallgreen1 sentence2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin | 1 | 1 |
People v. Alcalagreen1 sentence2021(People v. Alcala (1992) 4 Cal.4th 742, 803 (Alcala), italics omitted.) Here, there was substantial corroborative evidence of Naranjo’s identity as the shooter: eyewitness testimony, the surveillance videos, and Naranjo’s actions before and after the shooting. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin | 1 | 1 |
People v. Manibusangreen1 sentence2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin | 1 | 1 |
People v. Elliotgreen1 sentence2007Defendant now contends, despite his request at trial that the instruction not be given, that the court’s failure to instruct on second degree murder constituted reversible error, assigning various constitutional bases for his argument. “ ' “[A] defendant has a constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence [and] ... an erroneous failure to instruct on a lesser included offense constitutes a denial of that right . . . .” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Elliot, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 475.) The trial court has authority to determine whether to instruct o | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sedenogreen2 sentences1989I disagree. “ ‘ “It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 323 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ].) The Supreme Court in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 682-683 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 1989I disagree. “ ‘ “It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 323 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ].) The Supreme Court in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 682-683 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wickershamgreen2 sentences1989I disagree. “ ‘ “It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 323 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ].) The Supreme Court in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 682-683 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 1989I disagree. “ ‘ “It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 323 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ].) The Supreme Court in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 682-683 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Flannelred2 sentences1989I disagree. “ ‘ “It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 323 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ].) The Supreme Court in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 682-683 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 1989I disagree. “ ‘ “It is settled that in criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, the trial court must instruct on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. [Citations.] The general principles of law governing the case are those principles closely and openly connected with the facts before the court, and which are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 323 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 436 , 650 P.2d 311 ].) The Supreme Court in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 682-683 [ 160 Cal.Rptr. 84 | 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. Riel
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 .) That is because “[e]ven absent a request, the court should give the instruction ‘where the circumstances of the case so dictate.’ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 311, fn. 8 .) We review de novo a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury. 2021(People v. Carrera (1989) 49 Cal.3d 291, 311, fn. 8 (Carrera).) “Even absent a request, the court should give the instruction ‘where the circumstances of the case so dictate.’ ” (People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199 .) Appellate courts review de novo whether the trial court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
People v. Canizalez
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 850 .) 1. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Hinton
green
2 sentences2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin 2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin | 1 | 2021–2021 |
The People v. Hernandez
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Hernandez (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 559, 568 .) 3. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Avila
green
2 sentences2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin 2021In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant’s defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution.” For this direction, the CALCRIM drafters cite, among other cases, Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 562 and Coffman and Marlow, supra, 34 Cal.4th at page 105. 55 evidence in the record. [Citation.] ‘Corroboratin | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Elize
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Elize (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 615 .) It follows the court should give the instruction on the alternate defense if the defendant requests the instruction. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.