stock instruction in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2013 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Womblegreen calctapp · 1945 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1951–1951 2 sentences 1951(People v. Womble, 67 Cal.App.2d 885, 889 [ 155 P.2d 838 ].) However the jury was instructed at defendant’s request that in order to find defendant guilty they must find “that he knowingly had such objects in his possession,” and we are not persuaded that the jury was in anywise misled by the use of the words “or criminal negligence” in a general instruction. 1951(People v. Womble, 67 Cal.App.2d 885, 889 [ 155 P.2d 838 ].) However the jury was instructed at defendant’s request that in order to find defendant guilty they must find “that he knowingly had such objects in his possession,” and we are not persuaded that the jury was in anywise misled by the use of the words “or criminal negligence” in a general instruction.	1	1
People v. Alcaldegreen cal · 1944 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1950–1950 2 sentences 1950(People v. Alcalde, 24 Cal.2d 177, 187 [ 148 P.2d 627 ].) It is next argued that since the trial court gave a stock instruction on circumstantial evidence, it was error to refuse defendant’s instruction qualifying that instruction in respect to the burden of proof. 1950(People v. Alcalde, 24 Cal.2d 177, 187 [ 148 P.2d 627 ].) It is next argued that since the trial court gave a stock instruction on circumstantial evidence, it was error to refuse defendant’s instruction qualifying that instruction in respect to the burden of proof.	1	1
People v. Richardsongreen calctapp · 1946 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1947–1947 2 sentences 1947The next instruction reiterated the stock instruction in regard to the “weight of the evidence and the greater number of witnesses, ’ ’ and ended up with this phrase as the test: “Does the evidence produced, either by a greater or lesser number of witnesses, produce conviction in your mind?” Stress is laid on the use of the word “conviction,” arguing that the instruction in that language ignores the doctrine of reasonable doubt; that it is the duty of the jury to acquit if the evidence creates a doubt of his guilt, citing People v. Ames, 61 Cal.App.2d 522, 534 [ 143 P.2d 92 ], This instruction 1947The next instruction reiterated the stock instruction in regard to the “weight of the evidence and the greater number of witnesses, ’ ’ and ended up with this phrase as the test: “Does the evidence produced, either by a greater or lesser number of witnesses, produce conviction in your mind?” Stress is laid on the use of the word “conviction,” arguing that the instruction in that language ignores the doctrine of reasonable doubt; that it is the duty of the jury to acquit if the evidence creates a doubt of his guilt, citing People v. Ames, 61 Cal.App.2d 522, 534 [ 143 P.2d 92 ], This instruction	1	1
People v. Amesgreen calctapp · 1943 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1947–1947 2 sentences 1947The next instruction reiterated the stock instruction in regard to the “weight of the evidence and the greater number of witnesses, ’ ’ and ended up with this phrase as the test: “Does the evidence produced, either by a greater or lesser number of witnesses, produce conviction in your mind?” Stress is laid on the use of the word “conviction,” arguing that the instruction in that language ignores the doctrine of reasonable doubt; that it is the duty of the jury to acquit if the evidence creates a doubt of his guilt, citing People v. Ames, 61 Cal.App.2d 522, 534 [ 143 P.2d 92 ], This instruction 1947The next instruction reiterated the stock instruction in regard to the “weight of the evidence and the greater number of witnesses, ’ ’ and ended up with this phrase as the test: “Does the evidence produced, either by a greater or lesser number of witnesses, produce conviction in your mind?” Stress is laid on the use of the word “conviction,” arguing that the instruction in that language ignores the doctrine of reasonable doubt; that it is the duty of the jury to acquit if the evidence creates a doubt of his guilt, citing People v. Ames, 61 Cal.App.2d 522, 534 [ 143 P.2d 92 ], This instruction	1	1
People v. Tortericegreen calctapp · 1924 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1947–1947 2 sentences 1947The next instruction reiterated the stock instruction in regard to the “weight of the evidence and the greater number of witnesses, ’ ’ and ended up with this phrase as the test: “Does the evidence produced, either by a greater or lesser number of witnesses, produce conviction in your mind?” Stress is laid on the use of the word “conviction,” arguing that the instruction in that language ignores the doctrine of reasonable doubt; that it is the duty of the jury to acquit if the evidence creates a doubt of his guilt, citing People v. Ames, 61 Cal.App.2d 522, 534 [ 143 P.2d 92 ], This instruction 1947The next instruction reiterated the stock instruction in regard to the “weight of the evidence and the greater number of witnesses, ’ ’ and ended up with this phrase as the test: “Does the evidence produced, either by a greater or lesser number of witnesses, produce conviction in your mind?” Stress is laid on the use of the word “conviction,” arguing that the instruction in that language ignores the doctrine of reasonable doubt; that it is the duty of the jury to acquit if the evidence creates a doubt of his guilt, citing People v. Ames, 61 Cal.App.2d 522, 534 [ 143 P.2d 92 ], This instruction	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Bender green cal · 1945 2 sentences 1950The proffered instruction involved a case which rested entirely, chiefly or wholly on circumstantial evidence, as indicated in People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164 [ 163 P.2d 8 ]; and People v. Navarro, 74 Cal.App.2d 544 [ 169 P.2d 265 ], This is not such a case. 1946A man may do a thing . . . deliberately . . . from a moment’s reflection as well as after pondering over the subject for a month or a year” and a man “can premeditate, that is, think before doing the act, the moment he conceives the purpose, as well as if the act were the result of long'preconcert or preparation.” As held in People v. Bender (1945), supra, 27 Cal.2d 164, 182-185 , this combination of instructions, taken as a whole, substantially deletes the only .difference, in this type of case, between first and second degree murder.' Defendant next complains of the giving of a stock instruc	2	1946–1950
Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp. green cal · 1937 2 sentences 2013In Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 241 [ 65 P.2d 42 ] (Robbins), a seller and buyer of stock entered into an illegal executory contract for the sale of the stock in violation of the Corporate Securities Act. 2013In Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp. (1937) 8 Cal.2d 241 [ 65 P.2d 42 ] (Robbins), a seller and buyer of stock entered into an illegal executory contract for the sale of the stock in violation of the Corporate Securities Act.	1	2013–2013
Crowley v. Katleman green cal · 1994 1 sentence 2006(Crowley v. Katleman, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 695 .) Defendants cite other rulings as disparate as the judgment in favor of Hafif and Stock in Terry Schielke’s malicious prosecution action, and the order granting Stock’s motion to strike Terrie Hutton’s malicious prosecution action as a SLAPP.	1	2006–2006
Alarid v. Vanier green cal · 1958 2 sentences 1960Alarid v. Vanier, 50 Cal.2d 617 [ 327 P.2d 897 ], involved a car stopped behind five other cars at an intersection and it was struck by an automobile driven by defendant. 1960Alarid v. Vanier, 50 Cal.2d 617 [ 327 P.2d 897 ], involved a car stopped behind five other cars at an intersection and it was struck by an automobile driven by defendant.	1	1960–1960
People v. Navarro green calctapp · 1946 2 sentences 1950The proffered instruction involved a case which rested entirely, chiefly or wholly on circumstantial evidence, as indicated in People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164 [ 163 P.2d 8 ]; and People v. Navarro, 74 Cal.App.2d 544 [ 169 P.2d 265 ], This is not such a case. 1950The proffered instruction involved a case which rested entirely, chiefly or wholly on circumstantial evidence, as indicated in People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164 [ 163 P.2d 8 ]; and People v. Navarro, 74 Cal.App.2d 544 [ 169 P.2d 265 ], This is not such a case.	1	1950–1950

Where else courts name it

IL 13 (1905–2024) CO 13 (1956–2021) IA 9 (1904–2019) NM 9 (1921–2026) CA 7 (1946–2013) PA 7 (1904–2014) TX 5 (1913–2007) MT 3 (1919–2011) VA 3 (1929–1948) IN 3 (1938–1979) MO 2 (1950–1958) WV 2 (1995–1995) GA 2 (1927–2000) OH 2 (1910–2021) SD 2 (1915–1966) AZ 2 (1995–2009) OK 2 (1967–1991) MD 2 (1912–2009) KS 2 (1926–1991) UT 2 (1953–1999) NJ 2 (1970–1974)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check