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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2012 0 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. Coxgreen2 sentences2012He cites our statement in People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 ], that a trial court “may be required to give a properly formulated lingering doubt instruction when warranted by the evidence.” (Id. at p. 678, fn. 20.) We have since concluded, however, that such an instruction is unnecessary when the jury is properly instructed—as was defendant’s jury—regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors described in Penal Code section 190.3, factors (a) (circumstances of the crime) and (k) (other circumstances that extenuate the gravity of the crime). 2012He cites our statement in People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 692 , 809 P.2d 351 ], that a trial court “may be required to give a properly formulated lingering doubt instruction when warranted by the evidence.” (Id. at p. 678, fn. 20.) We have since concluded, however, that such an instruction is unnecessary when the jury is properly instructed—as was defendant’s jury—regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors described in Penal Code section 190.3, factors (a) (circumstances of the crime) and (k) (other circumstances that extenuate the gravity of the crime). | 4 | 5 |
People v. Hinesgreen2 sentences2012(People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 219-220 [30 *827 Cal.Rptr.3d 464, 114 P.3d 717 ]; People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 , 938 P.2d 388 ].) 6. 2012(People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 219-220 [30 *827 Cal.Rptr.3d 464, 114 P.3d 717 ]; People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 , 938 P.2d 388 ].) 6. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Thompkinsgreen2 sentences2010As a matter of statutory mandate, the court must charge the jury ‘on any points of law pertinent to the issue, if requested’ (§ 1093, subd. (f); see § 1127; People v. Thompkins (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 244, 256-257 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 516 ]); thus, it may be required to give a properly formulated lingering doubt instruction when warranted by the evidence. 2010As a matter of statutory mandate, the court must charge the jury ‘on any points of law pertinent to the issue, if requested’ (§ 1093, subd. (f); see § 1127; People v. Thompkins (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 244, 256-257 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 516 ]); thus, it may be required to give a properly formulated lingering doubt instruction when warranted by the evidence. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wardgreen2 sentences2012(People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 219-220 [30 *827 Cal.Rptr.3d 464, 114 P.3d 717 ]; People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 , 938 P.2d 388 ].) 6. 2012(People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 219-220 [30 *827 Cal.Rptr.3d 464, 114 P.3d 717 ]; People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594 , 938 P.2d 388 ].) 6. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Statengreen2 sentences2005This court has consistently held that neither federal nor state constitutional law imposes an obligation to give the requested instruction. *220 (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 166 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ]; People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 464 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 213 , 11 P.3d 968 ]; see People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 675-679.) Defendant nevertheless claims error under state law based on language in People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 678, footnote 20, that in compliance with the trial court’s statutory mandate to “charge the jury ‘on any points of law pe 2005This court has consistently held that neither federal nor state constitutional law imposes an obligation to give the requested instruction. *220 (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 166 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ]; People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 464 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 213 , 11 P.3d 968 ]; see People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 675-679.) Defendant nevertheless claims error under state law based on language in People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 678, footnote 20, that in compliance with the trial court’s statutory mandate to “charge the jury ‘on any points of law pe | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lawleygreen2 sentences2005This court has consistently held that neither federal nor state constitutional law imposes an obligation to give the requested instruction. *220 (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 166 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ]; People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 464 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 213 , 11 P.3d 968 ]; see People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 675-679.) Defendant nevertheless claims error under state law based on language in People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 678, footnote 20, that in compliance with the trial court’s statutory mandate to “charge the jury ‘on any points of law pe 2005This court has consistently held that neither federal nor state constitutional law imposes an obligation to give the requested instruction. *220 (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 166 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 614 , 38 P.3d 461 ]; People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 464 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 213 , 11 P.3d 968 ]; see People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at pp. 675-679.) Defendant nevertheless claims error under state law based on language in People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at page 678, footnote 20, that in compliance with the trial court’s statutory mandate to “charge the jury ‘on any points of law pe | 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. Terry
green
2 sentences1992He also claims error under state law, citing People v. Terry (1964) 61 Cal.2d 137 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 605 , 390 P.2d 381 ], However, it is settled that “the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require the jury be instructed to consider residual doubt as to the extent of [defendant’s] participation in the offense, except as statutorily provided.” (People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 677.) There is no state constitutional right to such an instruction, though “[a]s a matter of statutory mandate, the court . . . may be required to give a properly formulated lingering doubt instruction when warran 1992He also claims error under state law, citing People v. Terry (1964) 61 Cal.2d 137 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 605 , 390 P.2d 381 ], However, it is settled that “the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require the jury be instructed to consider residual doubt as to the extent of [defendant’s] participation in the offense, except as statutorily provided.” (People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 677.) There is no state constitutional right to such an instruction, though “[a]s a matter of statutory mandate, the court . . . may be required to give a properly formulated lingering doubt instruction when warran | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.