58 California opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2026 36 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. Younggreen2 sentences2026(See People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 [“The reviewing court … must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury”].) In discussing the conspiracy charges under section 182.5, the prosecutor referred to the erroneous fourth element of the instruction, telling the jury: “And this is the most important element, the fourth element is that they either intended to further[,] to promote, [or] further assist in the commission of crimes of other gang members.” 48 On this record, we cannot conclude that the instructional error was harmless. 2026(People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1212 .) This court “also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) In addition, “[a]s a general rule, failure to object to an instruction forfeits the issue on appeal.” (People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463 , 14 489; see also People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 120 ; but see People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 630 [defendant did not forfeit challenge to jury instruction by failing to object when his substantial rights are affected].) A defen | 18 | 54 |
Estelle v. McGuiregreen2 sentences2025(People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 87 .) Insofar as a challenged instruction engendered any ambiguity, “we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We view the challenged instruction “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) We also “consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) 3. 2023(People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 87 .) Insofar as a challenged instruction engendered any ambiguity, “we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We view the challenged instruction “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) We also “consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) 3. | 6 | 9 |
Weeks v. Angelonegreen2 sentences2021(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 ; see Weeks v. Angelone (2000) 528 U.S. 225, 236 .) “ ‘It is fundamental that jurors are presumed to be intelligent and capable of understanding and applying the court’s instructions.’ [Citation.] When a defendant claims an instruction was subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury, he must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the instruction in the manner asserted. [Citation.] In determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the entire charge of the court, in light of the trial record.” 2015Code, § 1259; People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691, fn. 12 ; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 129 .) 59. the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) When reviewing assertedly erroneous instructions, “‘we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘“‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of | 4 | 4 |
People v. Smitheygreen2 sentences2025“If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 983, 963 .) In particular, we “must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) On appeal, the Attorney General points to the closing arguments to establish Stewart is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. 2025(People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 87 .) Insofar as a challenged instruction engendered any ambiguity, “we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We view the challenged instruction “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) We also “consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) 3. | 2 | 9 |
Boyde v. Californiagreen2 sentences2021(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “In assessing a claim of instructional error or ambiguity, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.” (People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 696 ; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72-73 & fn. 4; Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 .) We also consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction or instructions on the jury. 2020(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “In assessing a claim of instructional error or 27. ambiguity, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.” (People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 696 ; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72-73 & fn. 4; Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 (Boyde).) We also consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction or instructions on the jury. | 2 | 5 |
People v. Covarrubiasgreen2 sentences2026“The legal adequacy of an instruction is reviewed independently.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “ ‘It is fundamental that jurors are presumed to be intelligent and capable of understanding and applying the court’s instructions.’ [Citation.] When a defendant claims an instruction was subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury, he must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the instruction in the manner asserted. [Citation.] In determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the entire charge of the court, in light of the 2021(See Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 906 .) “ ‘A single instruction is not viewed in isolation, and the ultimate decision on whether a specific jury instruction is correct and adequate is determined by consideration of the entire instructions given to the jury.’ ” (Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 906 .) We may also “consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) As given, CALCRIM 375 begins “The People presented evidence that defendant Johnson committed the offenses charged in counts 1 | 2 | 4 |
People v. Garceaugreen2 sentences2018Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140 , 189, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , 862 P.2d 664 [parties' closing arguments diminished any possibility of confusion about conspiracy instruction], disapproved on another point in People v . 2018Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140 , 189, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , 862 P.2d 664 [parties' closing arguments diminished any possibility of confusion about conspiracy instruction], disapproved on another point in People v . | 2 | 3 |
Middleton v. McNeilgreen2 sentences2024(See Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 438 [it is reasonable to assume that counsel’s argument clarified an ambiguous jury instruction, particularly when it is the prosecutor’s argument resolving an ambiguity in favor of the defendant]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 [“The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury”].) The prosecutor did not expressly state that the unanimity instruction applied to the lesser included offense, but his account of the circumstances under which the jury should co 2013(See Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 438 [prosecutor‟s argument can clarify ambiguous jury instructions]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 [“The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.”].) During the prosecutor‟s closing, he first explained the term assault as it related to counts 5 and 6 (assault with intent to commit a lewd act or sexual penetration), using a missed punch as an example of an assault. | 2 | 2 |
People v. McPetersred2 sentences2008(See People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 189 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , 862 P.2d 664 ] [any possibility of confusion about conspiracy instruction was diminished by the parties’ closing arguments], disapproved on another ground in People v. Yeoman [(2003)] 31 Cal.4th [93,] 117-118; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1191 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ] [correct view of the law regarding mitigating factors in penalty phase trial was reinforced by the parties’ closing arguments].)” (People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1202 .) Here, we cannot see how a jury would place enough sign 2008(See People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 189 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , 862 P.2d 664 ] [any possibility of confusion about conspiracy instruction was diminished by the parties’ closing arguments], disapproved on another ground in People v. Yeoman [(2003)] 31 Cal.4th [93,] 117-118; People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1191 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 , 832 P.2d 146 ] [correct view of the law regarding mitigating factors in penalty phase trial was reinforced by the parties’ closing arguments].)” (People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1202 .) Here, we cannot see how a jury would place enough sign | 2 | 2 |
People v. Tategreen2 sentences2021(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “In assessing a claim of instructional error or ambiguity, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.” (People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 696 ; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72-73 & fn. 4; Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 .) We also consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction or instructions on the jury. 2020(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “In assessing a claim of instructional error or 27. ambiguity, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.” (People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 696 ; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72-73 & fn. 4; Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 (Boyde).) We also consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction or instructions on the jury. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Ramosgreen2 sentences2024(People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 .) We “must also consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction,” and we “ ‘ “assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” ’ ” (People v. Young (2005) 3 2015(People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1087 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner. [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803-804 .) We also consider the arguments made by counsel “in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) Alth | 1 | 4 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2022If that meaning was not objectionable, the instructions cannot be deemed erroneous.’ ” (People v. Kumar (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 557 , 563–564 (Kumar).) “We also ‘consider the arguments of [trial] counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction[s] on the jury.’ [Citation.] ‘Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court’s instructions.’ ” (Id. at p. 564.) “If conflicting instructions on the mental state element of an alleged offense can act to remove that element from the jury’s consideration, the instructions cons 2015(Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ].) Before the jury heard any testimony, the trial court gave CALCRIM No. 104 as follows: “Nothing that the attorneys say is evidence. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Musselwhitegreen2 sentences2019If that meaning was not objectionable, the instructions cannot be deemed erroneous.” (People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 801 , italics omitted.) “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the [trial] court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” (People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248 , second bracketed insertion added.) “ ‘ “The absence of an essential element in one instruction,” ’ ” for example, “ ‘ “may be supplied by another or cured in light of the instructions as a whole.” 2005“If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 [ 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 243 , 978 P.2d 1171 ]; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72 & fn. 4 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 385 , 112 S.Ct. 475 ].) “ ‘ “ ‘[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.’ ” ’ ” (Smithey, at p. 963, quoting People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Souzagreen1 sentence2026(People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1212 .) This court “also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) In addition, “[a]s a general rule, failure to object to an instruction forfeits the issue on appeal.” (People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463 , 14 489; see also People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 120 ; but see People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 630 [defendant did not forfeit challenge to jury instruction by failing to object when his substantial rights are affected].) A defen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Carringtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hugginsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Stonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. San Nicolasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Nelsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mackeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Maurergreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gomezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mayfieldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Scottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Holtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Boycegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Robertsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2026(People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1212 .) This court “also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) In addition, “[a]s a general rule, failure to object to an instruction forfeits the issue on appeal.” (People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463 , 14 489; see also People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 120 ; but see People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 630 [defendant did not forfeit challenge to jury instruction by failing to object when his substantial rights are affected].) A defen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Beardslee
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 87 .) Insofar as a challenged instruction engendered any ambiguity, “we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We view the challenged instruction “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) We also “consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) 3. 2023(People v. Beardslee (1991) 53 Cal.3d 68, 87 .) Insofar as a challenged instruction engendered any ambiguity, “we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We view the challenged instruction “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) We also “consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) 3. | 3 | 2023–2025 |
People v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2022“When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 .) “The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) The Attorney General argues that the inclusion of these tw 2016Moreover, the prosecutor did not belabor the point and her questions stayed focused on probing whether Dr. Solomon adequately considered and accounted for the possibility that appellant was lying. 29 manner. [Citations.]” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758 , 803–804.) “The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) We presume the jurors are intelligent and capable of understanding and correlating all the instructions given to them. | 3 | 2015–2022 |
People v. Posey
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “In assessing a claim of instructional error or ambiguity, we consider the instructions as a whole to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.” (People v. Tate (2010) 49 Cal.4th 635, 696 ; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62 , 72-73 & fn. 4; Boyde v. California (1990) 494 U.S. 370, 380 .) We also consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction or instructions on the jury. 2021(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) 12 “If a jury instruction is ambiguous, we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction. [Citations.]” (People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) In making this determination, we consider the challenged language “ ‘in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record’ … .” (People v. Reliford (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1007, 1013 .) In particular, we “must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury. [Citations].” (People | 3 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Cole
green
2 sentences2026“The legal adequacy of an instruction is reviewed independently.” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “ ‘It is fundamental that jurors are presumed to be intelligent and capable of understanding and applying the court’s instructions.’ [Citation.] When a defendant claims an instruction was subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury, he must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the instruction in the manner asserted. [Citation.] In determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the entire charge of the court, in light of the 2024(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) When an appellate court reviews a potentially incomplete or misleading instruction, the relevant inquiry is “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘ “ ‘ “[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of parts of an instruction or from a particular instruction.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on | 2 | 2024–2026 |
People v. Cross
green
2 sentences2026(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) “ ‘Instructions should be interpreted . . . to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) 14 “Great bodily injury is bodily injury which is significant or substantial, not insignificant, trivial or moderate.” (People v. Armstrong (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1066 .) “[T]he injury need not be so grave as to cause the victim ‘ “permanent,” “prolonged,” or “protracted” ’ bodily damage.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 64 .) As no 2013If a jury instruction is arguably ambiguous, “„we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.‟ [Citations.] … The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1202 .) “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 | 2 | 2013–2026 |
People v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 390 .) We “also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 (Young).) Analysis As he did below, defendant challenges the portions of the instructions given to the jury defining theft and felony vandalism, the target offenses of the burglary charge in this case. 2024(People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 390 .) “ ‘Instructions should be interpreted . . . to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (Ramos, at p. 1088.) We must also “consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) Estrada has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the instructions in the way he posits. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
People v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2025(Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1203.) 5 We acknowledge counsel’s arguments are no substitute for correct instructions, but here they “support our conclusion that the jury was not misled.” ( Rogers, supra, 39 Cal.4th at pp. 869– 870; see also People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 (Young) [“The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.”].) 16 C. 2015Code, § 1259; People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691, fn. 12 ; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 129 .) 59. the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) When reviewing assertedly erroneous instructions, “‘we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘“‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of | 2 | 2015–2025 |
People v. Solomon
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Solomon, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 822 ; People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1202 .) 7 CALCRIM No. 3428 told jurors they could consider evidence of his mental defect for the “limited purpose of deciding whether, at the time of the charged crime, he acted with the intent or mental state required for that crime.” Although murder was the charged crime, the jurors were also instructed that voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder and that imperfect self-defense reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter. 2024(People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “ ‘A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.’ ” (People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 822 .) We “must also consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction,” and we “ ‘ “assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” ’ ” (People v. Young (2005) 3 | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Espinoza
green
2 sentences2022Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) In other words, we cannot view a single instruction “in ‘artificial isolation’; instead, it must be evaluated ‘in the context of the overall charge.’ ” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806 , 823–824.) We also consider counsels’ arguments in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 ), and we assume jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating all of the instructions given (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 ). 2016“In assessing a claim of instructional error, ‘we must view a challenged portion “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record” to determine “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) In other words, we cannot as defendant has done view a single instruction “in ‘artificial isolation’; instead, it must be evaluated ‘in the context of the overall charge.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806 | 2 | 2016–2022 |
People v. Mills
green
2 sentences2022Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) In other words, we cannot view a single instruction “in ‘artificial isolation’; instead, it must be evaluated ‘in the context of the overall charge.’ ” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806 , 823–824.) We also consider counsels’ arguments in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 ), and we assume jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating all of the instructions given (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 ). 2016“In assessing a claim of instructional error, ‘we must view a challenged portion “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record” to determine “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) In other words, we cannot as defendant has done view a single instruction “in ‘artificial isolation’; instead, it must be evaluated ‘in the context of the overall charge.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806 | 2 | 2016–2022 |
People v. Jablonski
green
2 sentences2022Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) In other words, we cannot view a single instruction “in ‘artificial isolation’; instead, it must be evaluated ‘in the context of the overall charge.’ ” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806 , 823–824.) We also consider counsels’ arguments in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 ), and we assume jurors are intelligent persons capable of understanding and correlating all of the instructions given (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 ). 2016“In assessing a claim of instructional error, ‘we must view a challenged portion “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record” to determine “ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ [Citations.]” (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831 .) In other words, we cannot as defendant has done view a single instruction “in ‘artificial isolation’; instead, it must be evaluated ‘in the context of the overall charge.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806 | 2 | 2016–2022 |
People v. Carey
green
2 sentences2015Code, § 1259; People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691, fn. 12 ; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 129 .) 59. the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) When reviewing assertedly erroneous instructions, “‘we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘“‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of 2013If a jury instruction is arguably ambiguous, “„we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.‟ [Citations.] … The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1202 .) “A defendant challenging an instruction as being subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instruction in the way asserted by the defendant.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 | 2 | 2013–2015 |
People v. Armstrong
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) “ ‘Instructions should be interpreted . . . to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) 14 “Great bodily injury is bodily injury which is significant or substantial, not insignificant, trivial or moderate.” (People v. Armstrong (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1066 .) “[T]he injury need not be so grave as to cause the victim ‘ “permanent,” “prolonged,” or “protracted” ’ bodily damage.” (People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 64 .) As no | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Livingston
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1212 .) This court “also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) In addition, “[a]s a general rule, failure to object to an instruction forfeits the issue on appeal.” (People v. Campbell (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 463 , 14 489; see also People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 120 ; but see People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 630 [defendant did not forfeit challenge to jury instruction by failing to object when his substantial rights are affected].) A defen | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Demetrulias
green
1 sentence2026(See People v. Demetrulias (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1, 20 .) III CALCRIM No. 301 and CALCRIM No. 1190 As stated, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 301 that, “[u]nless I instruct you otherwise, the testimony of only one witness can prove any fact.” The court further instructed with CALCRIM No. 1190 that, “[u]nless I instruct you otherwise, conviction of a sexual assault crime may be based on the testimony of a complaining witness alone.” Both instructions expressly referred to relying on a single witness to prove a fact or a crime and included language suggesting that their provisio | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Rangel green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Mitchell green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Hajek and Vo green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Martin green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Romero and Self green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Richardson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Martinez green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Ayers green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Cooper green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Mendoza green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Reliford green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Gonzales green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Benson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Davis v. Dennis B. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Newby green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Bolin green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Mehserle green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Penny green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Sanchez green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Mentch green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Lemons v. Regents of University of California green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Riley green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Martin green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Houston green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Chun red | 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.