58 California opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 27 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. Moongreen2 sentences2026(People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 220 .) However, “a trial court may properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 30 ; Red Mountain, LLC. v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 333, 359 [“‘Instructions should state rules of law in general terms’”].) The de novo standard of review applies to a trial court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction on the 2026Applicable Law and Standard of Review A defendant “has a right to an instruction that pinpoints the theory of the defense.” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 , italics omitted.) The trial court may, however, “properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence [citation].” (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 .) We apply the de novo standard of review when determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a requeste | 4 | 12 |
People v. Earpgreen2 sentences2022(See Hernandez, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1332 [the evidence must show the provocation caused the defendant to act under the heat of passion].) In any event, any error in failing to give the instruction was harmless under the Watson standard.11 (See People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887 [the Watson harmless error standard applies when a court fails to give a requested pinpoint instruction].) Washington and Hughes were free to argue provocation to the jury, even without an instruction. 2021Tapia must show that it is “reasonably probable that had the jury been given defendant’s proposed pinpoint instruction, it would have come to a[ ] different conclusion in this case.” (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887 ; see also People v. Larsen (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 810, 830-831 .) Tapia has failed to make that showing. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2025(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1144 [no prejudice because the standard instructions “adequately covered the valid points in the proposed pinpoint” and “counsel’s argument to the jury fully explicated the defense theme”]; People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 363 [“Any lingering doubt that we could have concerning a reasonable juror’s understanding of the [issue] is dispelled by defense counsel’s unrebutted closing argument, in which he emphasized and ‘pinpointed’ for the jury the defense theory . . . .”].) Keblis’s trial counsel pinpointed and emphasized the accident theory dur 2024As the trial court noted, the final line of the instructions on the felon in possession count told the jury: “Do not consider the fact that Defendant was prohibited from possessing a firearm for any other purpose.” “[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 People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1144 [finding failure to give pinpoint instruction harmless 8 where standard instructions and defense counsel’s argument “fully ex | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2025(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1144 [no prejudice because the standard instructions “adequately covered the valid points in the proposed pinpoint” and “counsel’s argument to the jury fully explicated the defense theme”]; People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 363 [“Any lingering doubt that we could have concerning a reasonable juror’s understanding of the [issue] is dispelled by defense counsel’s unrebutted closing argument, in which he emphasized and ‘pinpointed’ for the jury the defense theory . . . .”].) Keblis’s trial counsel pinpointed and emphasized the accident theory dur 2024(People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 362 .) However, a trial court may properly refuse to give a pinpoint instruction that “incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 .) In Trinh, the California Supreme Court held the trial court erred by denying a requested pinpoint instruction. ( 59 Cal.4th at p. 233 .) The defendant “sought a pinpoint instruction emphasizing that the jury need not find a provocation sufficient to rouse a reasonable person to ki | 2 | 3 |
People v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2024(People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199 [California Supreme Court has “yet to determine whether a trial court’s failure to instruct on a requested affirmative defense instruction supported by substantial evidence is federal constitutional error or state law error”]; People v. Barber, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 799 [error in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction is reviewed under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ].) Here, substantial evidence of the animal cruelty charge was presented in the form of K.O.’s testimony and the surveillance videos. 2021(People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199 [California Supreme Court has “yet to determine whether a trial court’s failure to instruct on a requested affirmative defense instruction supported by substantial evidence is federal constitutional error or state law error”]; People v. Barber, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 799 [error in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction is reviewed under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ].) As Morales admits, his defense focused on making the robbery a part of the basis for Morales’ claim of fear. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Mora & Rangelgreen2 sentences2023“A proper pinpoint instruction must be given at a defendant’s request.” (People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 498 .) “The court may, however, ‘properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” 3 (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021 .) We apply the de novo standard of review when determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction. 2023“A proper pinpoint instruction must be given at a defendant’s request.” (People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 498 .) “The court may, however, ‘properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” 3 (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021 .) We apply the de novo standard of review when determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction. | 1 | 5 |
People v. Boldengreen2 sentences2024(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 559 .) A trial court is required to give a requested pinpoint instruction on voluntary intoxication “only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s ‘actual formation of specific intent.’ ” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 677 .) “ ‘ “Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury,’ that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive.” ’ ” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1215 .) The trial court need not give the instructi 2021“Here, the jury received accurate and complete instructions” concerning the specific intent required for the premeditated first degree murder theory, and “nothing in the particular circumstances of this case suggested a need for additional clarification.” (Bolden, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 559 .) Accordingly, and because the proposed instruction was both misleading and incorrect on the law, we conclude “[t]he trial court did not error in refusing to give this requested pinpoint instruction.” (Ibid.) b. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Hartschgreen2 sentences2020(People v. Bacon (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1082, 1112 ; People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 511 ; People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 659 .) Any error in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction is reviewed under the standard enunciated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 836: is it reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error? 2014(Hartsch, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 503 [“The logic of the inference [the proposed pinpoint instruction] described was plain, and was argued to the jury by counsel.”].) There is no reasonable probability the outcome would have been more favorable to defendant had the trial court given the requested pinpoint instruction. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Wilkinsgreen2 sentences2018(People v. Wilkins (2013) 56 Cal.4th 333, 348-349 .) McDaniels does not explain how the proposed instruction bore on an element of the charged offenses or how the trial court’s failure to give it violated his right to present a complete defense. 2014(People v. Wilkins (2013) 56 Cal.4th 333, 349 (Wilkins).) The requested pinpoint instruction was as follows: “In deciding whether the People have proved beyond a reasonable doubt the offense charged in [Counts 1 and 2], you must impartially compare and consider all of the evidence that was received on the issue of whether the defendant penetrated the anus of Emma Doe with his penis.[¶] To convict the defendant of this charge, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that he penetrated her anus. | 1 | 4 |
People v. Saillegreen2 sentences2024(People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 1189 .) A trial court may also be required to give a requested pinpoint instruction, which is an instruction that “relate[s] particular facts to a legal issue in the case or ‘pinpoint[s]’ the crux of a defendant’s case.” (People v. Saille (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1103, 1119 .) “Parties are entitled to legally correct and factually warranted pinpoint instructions, should they request such additional instruction.” (People v. Lyon (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 237 , 252.) “However, a trial court may properly refuse to give a pinpoint instruction that ‘incorrectly states th 2018Instead, it is a request for an instruction that negates the intent element of malice murder. ( People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616 , 675, 114 Cal.Rptr.3d 133 , 237 P.3d 474 [noting that accident is not an affirmative defense, but a theory that "attempt[s] to raise a doubt concerning an element (intent) of a crime that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt"].) Still, a trial court must provide a requested pinpoint instruction on such issues where "there is evidence supportive of the theory." ( Ibid. , quoting Saille , supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 1119, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 364 , 820 P. | 1 | 2 |
Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility Districtgreen1 sentence2026(People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 220 .) However, “a trial court may properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 30 ; Red Mountain, LLC. v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 333, 359 [“‘Instructions should state rules of law in general terms’”].) The de novo standard of review applies to a trial court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction on the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Elseygreen1 sentence2025(People v. Elsey (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 948, 953, fn. 2 .) Here, we conclude that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected because it is not reasonably probable that he would have achieved a more favorable outcome if the trial court had given the requested pinpoint instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| Jackson v. Virginiared | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hernandezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Catlingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Larsengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Smitheygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pearsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Ledesmagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Mickeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pool v. City of Oaklandgreen | 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. Johnson
green
2 sentences2026(People v. Johnson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 702, 707 .) 3. 2023(People v. Johnson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 702, 707 .) Murder can be based on either express or implied malice. (§ 188, subd. (a).) The People’s theory of murder was that Woodfill acted with implied malice when he drove under the influence. | 11 | 2015–2026 |
People v. Watson
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 199 [California Supreme Court has “yet to determine whether a trial court’s failure to instruct on a requested affirmative defense instruction supported by substantial evidence is federal constitutional error or state law error”]; People v. Barber, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 799 [error in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction is reviewed under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ].) Here, substantial evidence of the animal cruelty charge was presented in the form of K.O.’s testimony and the surveillance videos. 2021Thus, even if we assume that the trial court erred in denying the requested pinpoint instruction, we review a trial court’s decision to not give a requested pinpoint instruction under the standard of prejudice set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . | 8 | 2015–2024 |
People v. Mincey
green
2 sentences2026Applicable Law and Standard of Review A defendant “has a right to an instruction that pinpoints the theory of the defense.” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 , italics omitted.) The trial court may, however, “properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence [citation].” (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 .) We apply the de novo standard of review when determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a requeste 2016Analysis A defendant “has a right to an instruction that pinpoints the theory of the defense.” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 , italics omitted.) The trial court may, however, “properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence [citation].” (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 30 (Moon).) We apply the de novo standard of review when determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction. | 6 | 2015–2026 |
People v. Hovarter
green
2 sentences2023“A proper pinpoint instruction must be given at a defendant’s request.” (People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 498 .) “The court may, however, ‘properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” 3 (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021 .) We apply the de novo standard of review when determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction. 2023“A proper pinpoint instruction must be given at a defendant’s request.” (People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 498 .) “The court may, however, ‘properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” 3 (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1021 .) We apply the de novo standard of review when determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction. | 4 | 2022–2023 |
People v. Wharton
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 .) “[I]nstructions that attempt to relate particular facts to a legal issue are generally objectionable as argumentative [citation], and the effect of certain facts on identified theories ‘is best left to argument by counsel, cross- examination of the witnesses, and expert testimony where appropriate.’ ” (Wharton, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 570 .) We review de novo the trial court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction. 2016(People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 .) "[I]nstructions that attempt to relate particular facts to a legal issue are generally objectionable as argumentative [citation], and the effect of certain facts on identified theories 'is best left to argument by counsel, cross-examination of the witnesses, and expert testimony where appropriate.' " (People v. Wharton, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 570 .) We review de novo the trial court's refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction. | 4 | 2015–2022 |
People v. Zaragoza
green
2 sentences2020In Zaragoza, at the defendant’s request, the court used a modified version of CALJIC No. 2.01, the predecessor to CALCRIM No. 224. ( Zaragoza, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 52-53.) The issue there was whether the trial court erred by declining to use the defendant’s requested pinpoint instruction, which attempted to link the instruction’s principles to the defense’s theory of the case. 2020In Zaragoza, at the defendant’s request, the court used a modified version of CALJIC No. 2.01, the predecessor to CALCRIM No. 224. ( Zaragoza, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 52-53.) The issue there was whether the trial court erred by declining to use the defendant’s requested pinpoint instruction, which attempted to link the instruction’s principles to the defense’s theory of the case. | 3 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Kraft
green
2 sentences2026(See People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 497 [“the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested instruction as duplicative”]; People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234 , 1297–1298; People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063 .) “The California jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council are the official instructions for use in the state of California. 2025(See Mora and Rangel, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 497 ; People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063 .) C. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
People v. Manriquez
green
2 sentences2026(See People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581 ; People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to a trial 6 court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction on the basis it was duplicative, confusing, or argumentative. 2025(See People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581 .) The abuse of discretion standard applies to a trial court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction on the basis it is duplicative, confusing, or argumentative. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
People v. Yoder
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “ ‘In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole … [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ ” (People v. Yoder (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 333, 338 .) C. 2015(People v. Johnson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 702, 707 .) In doing so, we consider the instructions “‘“as a whole . . . [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given. [Citation.]”’” (People v. Martin (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1111 , quoting People v. Yoder (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 333, 338 .) The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 570, which states in relevant part, “While no specific type of provocation is required, slight or remote provocation is not sufficient. | 2 | 2015–2024 |
People v. Cole
green
2 sentences2024(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210 .) “Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “ ‘In determining whether error has been committed in giving or not giving jury instructions, we must consider the instructions as a whole … [and] assume that the jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.’ ” (People v. Yoder (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 333, 338 .) C. 2024(People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 559 .) A trial court is required to give a requested pinpoint instruction on voluntary intoxication “only when there is substantial evidence of the defendant’s intoxication and the intoxication affected the defendant’s ‘actual formation of specific intent.’ ” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 677 .) “ ‘ “Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to ‘deserve consideration by the jury,’ that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive.” ’ ” (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1215 .) The trial court need not give the instructi | 2 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Gurule
green
2 sentences2024Substantial Evidence Supports the Jury’s Finding that Martinez-Soto Did Not Act in Self-Defense Where, as here, a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s finding that the defendant did not act in lawful self- defense, “ ‘we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 630 ; Pe 2020(People v. Bacon (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1082, 1112 ; People v. Hartsch (2010) 49 Cal.4th 472, 511 ; People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 659 .) Any error in refusing to give a requested pinpoint instruction is reviewed under the standard enunciated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 836: is it reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in the absence of the error? | 2 | 2020–2024 |
People v. Wright
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 .) “[I]nstructions that attempt to relate particular facts to a legal issue are generally objectionable as argumentative [citation], and the effect of certain facts on identified theories ‘is best left to argument by counsel, cross- examination of the witnesses, and expert testimony where appropriate.’ ” (Wharton, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 570 .) We review de novo the trial court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction. 2016(People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 .) "[I]nstructions that attempt to relate particular facts to a legal issue are generally objectionable as argumentative [citation], and the effect of certain facts on identified theories 'is best left to argument by counsel, cross-examination of the witnesses, and expert testimony where appropriate.' " (People v. Wharton, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 570 .) We review de novo the trial court's refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction. | 2 | 2016–2022 |
People v. Hoard
green
2 sentences2017In instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1203, the trial court rejected a request by defense counsel for a pinpoint instruction as follows: “Movement can be incidental to the robbery, even if the movement is not necessary for the robbery.” As the trial court noted, the defense drew the language of the requested pinpoint instruction from the case of People v. Hoard (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 599 . 2014In instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 1203, the trial court rejected a request by defense counsel for a pinpoint instruction as follows: “Movement can be incidental to the robbery, even if the movement is not necessary for the robbery.” As the trial court noted, the defense drew the language of the requested pinpoint instruction from the case of People v. Hoard (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 599 . | 2 | 2014–2017 |
People v. Posey
green
2 sentences2026(See People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581 ; People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to a trial 6 court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction on the basis it was duplicative, confusing, or argumentative. 2026(See People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 581 ; People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) The abuse of discretion standard of review applies to a trial 6 court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction on the basis it was duplicative, confusing, or argumentative. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Whisenhunt
green
1 sentence2026(People v. Whisenhunt, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 220 .) However, “a trial court may properly refuse an instruction offered by the defendant if it incorrectly states the law, is argumentative, duplicative, or potentially confusing [citation], or if it is not supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 30 ; Red Mountain, LLC. v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 333, 359 [“‘Instructions should state rules of law in general terms’”].) The de novo standard of review applies to a trial court’s refusal to give a requested pinpoint instruction on the | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Gonzales
green
1 sentence2026(See People v. Mora and Rangel (2018) 5 Cal.5th 442, 497 [“the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the requested instruction as duplicative”]; People v. Gonzales (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1234 , 1297–1298; People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063 .) “The California jury instructions approved by the Judicial Council are the official instructions for use in the state of California. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. San Nicolas
green
1 sentence2026(See, e.g., San Nicolas, supra, at p. 675 .) The court did not err in refusing to give the requested pinpoint instruction where it merely restated the legal principles already covered in CALCRIM No. 520. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Barton green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2024Substantial Evidence Supports the Jury’s Finding that Martinez-Soto Did Not Act in Self-Defense Where, as here, a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s finding that the defendant did not act in lawful self- defense, “ ‘we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Gurule, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 630 ; Pe | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Ramos green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Chapman v. California red | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Canizalez green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In Re WINSHIP green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Williams green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Dung Dinh Anh Trinh green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Diaz green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Johnson green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Salas green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Harrison green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Stewart green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Bacon green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Sedeno green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Breverman green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Jennings green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Giardino green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Smith green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Watson green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Martin green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.