instruction should contain principle in California

2026“An instruction is argumentative when it recites facts drawn from the evidence in such a manner as to constitute argument to the jury in the guise of a statement of law.” (People v. Campos (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1244 .) “ ‘An instruction should contain a principle of law applicable to the case, expressed in plain language, indicating no opinion of the court as to any fact in issue.’ ” (People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1135 .) Here, the instruction told the jury it had to determine whether certain facts alleged by the prosecution demonstrated defendant was a danger to society.

2020(Id. at pp. 1135, 1138.) The Wright court explained: “We disapproved of ‘the common practice [of] [selecting] certain material facts, or those which are deemed to be material, and endeavoring to force the court to indicate an opinion favorable to the defendant as to the effect of such facts, by incorporating them into instructions containing a correct principle of law,’ and we explained, ‘An instruction should contain a principle of law applicable to the case, expressed in plain language, indicating no opinion of the court as to any fact in issue.’ ” (Id. at p. 1135, quoting People v. McNamara

2014Particularly in a criminal trial, the judge’s last word is apt to be the decisive word.” (Bollenbach v. United States (1946) 326 U.S. 607, 612 .) “‘“An instruction should contain a principle of law applicable to the case, expressed in plain language, indicating no opinion of the court as to any fact in issue.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 198 ; see § 1127 [“The court shall inform the jury … that the jurors are the exclusive judges of all questions of fact submitted to them .… Either party may present to the court any written charge on the law, but not with respect

2014Particularly in a criminal trial, the judge’s last word is apt to be the decisive word.” (Bollenbach v. United States (1946) 326 U.S. 607, 612 .) “‘“An instruction should contain a principle of law applicable to the case, expressed in plain language, indicating no opinion of the court as to any fact in issue.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 198 ; see § 1127 [“The court shall inform the jury … that the jurors are the exclusive judges of all questions of fact submitted to them .… Either party may present to the court any written charge on the law, but not with respect

2014(Compare People v. Santos (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 723 , 745-746 with People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349, 354-355 ; People v. Thoi (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 689 , 697-698 & fn. 5.) “Whether a person has aided and abetted in the commission of a crime ordinarily is a question of fact. [Citations.]” (In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094 , italics added.) A trial court’s answer to a jury question pursuant to section 1138 is an instruction on the law, not a comment on the evidence, and as such must be neutral.

2014(Compare People v. Santos (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 723 , 745-746 with People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349, 354-355 ; People v. Thoi (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 689 , 697-698 & fn. 5.) “Whether a person has aided and abetted in the commission of a crime ordinarily is a question of fact. [Citations.]” (In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094 , italics added.) A trial court’s answer to a jury question pursuant to section 1138 is an instruction on the law, not a comment on the evidence, and as such must be neutral.

2014(Compare People v. Santos (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 723 , 745-746 with People v. Loza (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 332, 349, 354-355 ; People v. Thoi (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 689 , 697-698 & fn. 5.) “Whether a person has aided and abetted in the commission of a crime ordinarily is a question of fact. [Citations.]” (In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094 , italics added.) A trial court’s answer to a jury question pursuant to section 1138 is an instruction on the law, not a comment on the evidence, and as such must be neutral.

2013(Ibid.) In reviewing the claim, we reverse only if the trial court erred and the error “resulted in a miscarriage of justice, making it reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of error.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 .) “A trial court must instruct the jury, even without a request, on all general principles of law that are „“closely and openly connected to the facts and that are 7 necessary for the jury‟s understanding of the case.” [Citation.] . . .‟ [Citation.]” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 246 .) “„An in

2013(Ibid.) In reviewing the claim, we reverse only if the trial court erred and the error “resulted in a miscarriage of justice, making it reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of error.” (People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249 .) “A trial court must instruct the jury, even without a request, on all general principles of law that are „“closely and openly connected to the facts and that are 7 necessary for the jury‟s understanding of the case.” [Citation.] . . .‟ [Citation.]” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 246 .) “„An in

2013(People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 424 .) We review independently whether substantial evidence supported a defense.