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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2025 2 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. Ayalagreen2 sentences2014As defendant acknowledges, “ ‘[w]e have already concluded that the standard instructions do not inherently encourage the double counting of aggravating factors. [Citations.] We have also recognized repeatedly that the absence of an instruction cautioning against double counting does not warrant reversal in the absence of any misleading argument by the prosecutor.’ ” (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 289 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532 , 6 P.3d 193 ], quoting People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1180 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Defendant acknowledges the prosecutor did not urge the 2014As defendant acknowledges, “ ‘[w]e have already concluded that the standard instructions do not inherently encourage the double counting of aggravating factors. [Citations.] We have also recognized repeatedly that the absence of an instruction cautioning against double counting does not warrant reversal in the absence of any misleading argument by the prosecutor.’ ” (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 289 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532 , 6 P.3d 193 ], quoting People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1180 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Defendant acknowledges the prosecutor did not urge the | 1 | 2 |
People v. Barnettgreen2 sentences2014As defendant acknowledges, “ ‘[w]e have already concluded that the standard instructions do not inherently encourage the double counting of aggravating factors. [Citations.] We have also recognized repeatedly that the absence of an instruction cautioning against double counting does not warrant reversal in the absence of any misleading argument by the prosecutor.’ ” (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 289 , quoting People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1180 .) Defendant acknowledges the prosecutor did not urge the jury to double count the circumstances of the crime and the special circ 2014As defendant acknowledges, “ ‘[w]e have already concluded that the standard instructions do not inherently encourage the double counting of aggravating factors. [Citations.] We have also recognized repeatedly that the absence of an instruction cautioning against double counting does not warrant reversal in the absence of any misleading argument by the prosecutor.’ ” (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 289 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532 , 6 P.3d 193 ], quoting People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1180 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Defendant acknowledges the prosecutor did not urge the | 1 | 2 |
People v. Burneygreen1 sentence2025The court had no sua sponte obligation to instruct on duress, and there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction Tinajero argues the court should have sua sponte instructed the jury that “duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder.”12 (See People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 249 [“duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder, and an instruction such as the one requested by defendant may be appropriate if warranted by the circumstances of the case”].) The contention is forfeited and fails on th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Enracagreen1 sentence2025(See Enraca, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 761 [holding trial court properly instructed jury that self-defense doctrine may not be invoked “if the defendant[,] by his unlawful or wrongful conduct[,] created the circumstances which legally justified his adversary’s use of force”].) Therefore, the court did not err in instructing the jury with the prosecutor’s requested special instruction. 5. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2000(See People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 600 , 755 P.2d 1049 ].) The same infirmity afflicted the requested special instruction pertaining to the Loggins count, which for the same reason was properly refused. 2000(See People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 600 , 755 P.2d 1049 ].) The same infirmity afflicted the requested special instruction pertaining to the Loggins count, which for the same reason was properly refused. | 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. Lee
green
1 sentence2025The court had no sua sponte obligation to instruct on duress, and there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction Tinajero argues the court should have sua sponte instructed the jury that “duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder.”12 (See People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 249 [“duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder, and an instruction such as the one requested by defendant may be appropriate if warranted by the circumstances of the case”].) The contention is forfeited and fails on th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Mayfield
green
1 sentence2025The court had no sua sponte obligation to instruct on duress, and there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction Tinajero argues the court should have sua sponte instructed the jury that “duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder.”12 (See People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 249 [“duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder, and an instruction such as the one requested by defendant may be appropriate if warranted by the circumstances of the case”].) The contention is forfeited and fails on th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hovarter
green
1 sentence2025The court had no sua sponte obligation to instruct on duress, and there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction Tinajero argues the court should have sua sponte instructed the jury that “duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder.”12 (See People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 249 [“duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder, and an instruction such as the one requested by defendant may be appropriate if warranted by the circumstances of the case”].) The contention is forfeited and fails on th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2025The court had no sua sponte obligation to instruct on duress, and there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction Tinajero argues the court should have sua sponte instructed the jury that “duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder.”12 (See People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 249 [“duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder, and an instruction such as the one requested by defendant may be appropriate if warranted by the circumstances of the case”].) The contention is forfeited and fails on th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence2025The court had no sua sponte obligation to instruct on duress, and there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction Tinajero argues the court should have sua sponte instructed the jury that “duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder.”12 (See People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 249 [“duress may negate the deliberation or premeditation required for first degree murder, and an instruction such as the one requested by defendant may be appropriate if warranted by the circumstances of the case”].) The contention is forfeited and fails on th | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2022(People v. Johnson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 702, 707 .) Under this standard, we see no reason to question the trial court’s rejection of the defense’s requested special instruction in light of the instruction the court gave. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Riggs
green
2 sentences2018It is true that CALJIC No. 2.28 has been the subject of significant criticism in the courts of appeal. ( People v. Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248 , 306-307, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 648 , 187 P.3d 363 .) Many such critiques are inapposite, as they relate to discovery delays caused by a defendant, not those caused by the prosecution. 2018It is true that CALJIC No. 2.28 has been the subject of significant criticism in the courts of appeal. ( People v. Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248 , 306-307, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 648 , 187 P.3d 363 .) Many such critiques are inapposite, as they relate to discovery delays caused by a defendant, not those caused by the prosecution. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Bolin
green
2 sentences2018(See People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297 , 326, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 956 P.2d 374 [failure to object to wording of jury instruction forfeits appellate claim of error].) Even if Mora and Rangel had preserved this claim for appellate review, the trial court did not err by declining to give the requested special instruction, nor did it err by deploying the modified CALJIC No. 2.28 to instruct the jury. 2018(See People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297 , 326, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 412 , 956 P.2d 374 [failure to object to wording of jury instruction forfeits appellate claim of error].) Even if Mora and Rangel had preserved this claim for appellate review, the trial court did not err by declining to give the requested special instruction, nor did it err by deploying the modified CALJIC No. 2.28 to instruct the jury. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Barnett
green
2 sentences2014As defendant acknowledges, “ ‘[w]e have already concluded that the standard instructions do not inherently encourage the double counting of aggravating factors. [Citations.] We have also recognized repeatedly that the absence of an instruction cautioning against double counting does not warrant reversal in the absence of any misleading argument by the prosecutor.’ ” (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 289 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532 , 6 P.3d 193 ], quoting People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1180 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Defendant acknowledges the prosecutor did not urge the 2014As defendant acknowledges, “ ‘[w]e have already concluded that the standard instructions do not inherently encourage the double counting of aggravating factors. [Citations.] We have also recognized repeatedly that the absence of an instruction cautioning against double counting does not warrant reversal in the absence of any misleading argument by the prosecutor.’ ” (People v. Ayala (2000) 24 Cal.4th 243, 289 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 532 , 6 P.3d 193 ], quoting People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1180 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121 , 954 P.2d 384 ].) Defendant acknowledges the prosecutor did not urge the | 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.