facts underlying the particular instruction in California

2026(Ibid.; accord, People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680 , 705–706.) In other words, there must be substantial, credible evidence “ ‘from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’ ” (Souza, at p. 116.) In assessing whether the evidence is substantial enough to warrant an instruction on a lesser included offense, we are mindful that, in this context, we determine only the “bare legal sufficiency” of the evidence and “not its weight.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 177 (Breverman).) Moreover, doubts about whe

2025(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 155 , 162–163.) A trial court’s duty to instruct on its own motion “‘encompasses instructions on lesser included offenses if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.’ [Citations.] ‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial— that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons 11 could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’” ( Souz

2026(See People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574 , 623–624.) The trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses “if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686 , 744–745, overruled on other grounds by People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) “To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the f

2023(See People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745 [substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist”], overruled on other grounds in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) “[B]oth self-defense and defense of others, whether perfect or imperfect, require an actual fear of imminent harm.” (People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 868 .) Prescott argues that “the jury could have found [he] went to the neighborhood to visit friends, . . . and encountered rival gang members who fir

2026(See People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574 , 623–624.) The trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses “if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.” (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686 , 744–745, overruled on other grounds by People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) “To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the f

2023(See People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745 [substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist”], overruled on other grounds in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) “[B]oth self-defense and defense of others, whether perfect or imperfect, require an actual fear of imminent harm.” (People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 868 .) Prescott argues that “the jury could have found [he] went to the neighborhood to visit friends, . . . and encountered rival gang members who fir

2025A trial court has a duty to instruct on a lesser-included offense “ ‘if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.’ ” (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 116 .) “ ‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’ [Citations.] [¶] ‘ “Conversely, even on request, the court ‘has no duty

2025Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * “‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’” (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90 , 115–116 (Souza).) Eric Scott Sills killed his wife Susann in an upstairs bedroom of 1 their home.

2023The court also stated that it would 72 PEOPLE v. THOMAS Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, J. reconsider its ruling if defendant presented additional evidence to support his theory. “[A] trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 .) “ ‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial — that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could c

2014(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 .)” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 ; accord, People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 179 (Booker).) ‘“To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’ (People v. Blair [(2005)] 36 Cal.4th [686,] 745, citing People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .)” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 250 .) “Murder is th

2026(Ibid.; accord, People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680 , 705–706.) In other words, there must be substantial, credible evidence “ ‘from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’ ” (Souza, at p. 116.) In assessing whether the evidence is substantial enough to warrant an instruction on a lesser included offense, we are mindful that, in this context, we determine only the “bare legal sufficiency” of the evidence and “not its weight.” (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 177 (Breverman).) Moreover, doubts about whe

2013(People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705 .) The prejudicial effect of an erroneous failure or refusal to instruct on a lesser included offense is analyzed pursuant to People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .

2026Objectively, the victim’s conduct must have been 11 sufficiently provocative to cause an ordinary person of average disposition to act rashly or without due deliberation and reflection.” (People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 759 ; see also People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1225 (Rangel) [“the provocation must be one that would cause an emotion so intense that an ordinary person would simply react, without reflection”].) “Subjectively, ‘the accused must be shown to have killed while under “the actual influence of a strong passion” induced by such provocation.’ ” (Enraca, at p. 759; se

2025Objectively, the victim’s conduct must have been sufficiently provocative to cause an ordinary person of average disposition to act rashly or without due deliberation and reflection.” (People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 759 (Enraca); see also People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1225 (Rangel) [“the provocation must be one that would cause an emotion so intense that an ordinary person would simply react, without reflection”].) “Subjectively, ‘the accused must be shown to have killed while under “the actual influence of a strong passion” induced by such provocation.’ ” (Enraca, at p. 75

2016(See People v. 12 Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 254 [under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, “a person who aids and abets a confederate in the commission of a criminal act is liable not only for that crime (the target crime), but also for any other offense (nontarget crime) committed by the confederate as a ‘natural and probable consequence’ of the crime originally aided and abetted”]; accord, People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 164-166 .) Under this natural and probable consequence theory, the aider and abettor’s intent to commit the nontarget homicide is immaterial.

2016(See People v. 12 Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 254 [under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, “a person who aids and abets a confederate in the commission of a criminal act is liable not only for that crime (the target crime), but also for any other offense (nontarget crime) committed by the confederate as a ‘natural and probable consequence’ of the crime originally aided and abetted”]; accord, People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 164-166 .) Under this natural and probable consequence theory, the aider and abettor’s intent to commit the nontarget homicide is immaterial.

2016(People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 826 ; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 ; see People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 664 [court has sua sponte duty to instruct on lesser included offense when there is substantial evidence that, if believed, would permit a reasonable juror to find the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense]; Burney, at p. 250 [“‘[t]o justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury . . . could conclude that the facts underlying t

2016(People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 826 ; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 ; see People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 664 [court has sua sponte duty to instruct on lesser included offense when there is substantial evidence that, if believed, would permit a reasonable juror to find the defendant committed the lesser, but not the greater, offense]; Burney, at p. 250 [“‘[t]o justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury . . . could conclude that the facts underlying t

2016(See People v. 12 Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 254 [under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, “a person who aids and abets a confederate in the commission of a criminal act is liable not only for that crime (the target crime), but also for any other offense (nontarget crime) committed by the confederate as a ‘natural and probable consequence’ of the crime originally aided and abetted”]; accord, People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 164-166 .) Under this natural and probable consequence theory, the aider and abettor’s intent to commit the nontarget homicide is immaterial.

2016(See People v. 12 Prettyman (1996) 14 Cal.4th 248, 254 [under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, “a person who aids and abets a confederate in the commission of a criminal act is liable not only for that crime (the target crime), but also for any other offense (nontarget crime) committed by the confederate as a ‘natural and probable consequence’ of the crime originally aided and abetted”]; accord, People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 164-166 .) Under this natural and probable consequence theory, the aider and abettor’s intent to commit the nontarget homicide is immaterial.

2015There is also substantial evidence that the lesser offense of second degree murder was committed because Fort admitted shooting at people as a “reaction” to the situation and with “no idea what was going on.” (See People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 700 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ] [second degree murder lies when the defendant engages in an act in conscious disregard for human life involving a high degree of probability that it will result in death], overruled on another point in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 627 , 205 P.3d 1074 ]; People v. Pear

2015There is also substantial evidence that the lesser offense of second degree murder was committed because Fort admitted shooting at people as a “reaction” to the situation and with “no idea what was going on.” (See People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 700 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ] [second degree murder lies when the defendant engages in an act in conscious disregard for human life involving a high degree of probability that it will result in death], overruled on another point in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 627 , 205 P.3d 1074 ]; People v. Pear

2015There is also substantial evidence that the lesser offense of second degree murder was committed because Fort admitted shooting at people as a “reaction” to the situation and with “no idea what was going on.” (See People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 700 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ] [second degree murder lies when the defendant engages in an act in conscious disregard for human life involving a high degree of probability that it will result in death], overruled on another point in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 627 , 205 P.3d 1074 ]; People v. Pear

2015There is also substantial evidence that the lesser offense of second degree murder was committed because Fort admitted shooting at people as a “reaction” to the situation and with “no idea what was going on.” (See People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 700 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ] [second degree murder lies when the defendant engages in an act in conscious disregard for human life involving a high degree of probability that it will result in death], overruled on another point in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 627 , 205 P.3d 1074 ]; People v. Pear

2015There is also substantial evidence that the lesser offense of second degree murder was committed because Fort admitted shooting at people as a “reaction” to the situation and with “no idea what was going on.” (See People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 700 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ] [second degree murder lies when the defendant engages in an act in conscious disregard for human life involving a high degree of probability that it will result in death], overruled on another point in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 627 , 205 P.3d 1074 ]; People v. Pear

2015There is also substantial evidence that the lesser offense of second degree murder was committed because Fort admitted shooting at people as a “reaction” to the situation and with “no idea what was going on.” (See People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 700 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ] [second degree murder lies when the defendant engages in an act in conscious disregard for human life involving a high degree of probability that it will result in death], overruled on another point in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 627 , 205 P.3d 1074 ]; People v. Pear

2021(Id. at p. 162; People v. Thomas (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 630, 643 .) Substantial evidence in this context is evidence “ ‘ “from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” ( Enraca, supra, at p. 759 .) It does not mean “ ‘ “any evidence, no matter how weak,” ’ ” but rather, “ ‘ “ ‘evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . . conclude[]’ ” that the lesser offense, but not the greater was committed.’ ” (People v. Moye (2009) 47 Cal.4th 537, 553 (Moye).) Evidence of the

2020We briefly review of some common principles of manslaughter as a lesser included offense to murder. “ ‘In criminal cases, even in the absence of a request, a trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] [¶] ‘ “To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruct

2023(See People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745 [substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist”], overruled on other grounds in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 .) “[B]oth self-defense and defense of others, whether perfect or imperfect, require an actual fear of imminent harm.” (People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 868 .) Prescott argues that “the jury could have found [he] went to the neighborhood to visit friends, . . . and encountered rival gang members who fir

2021(See People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686 , 744– 745, overruled on other grounds in People v. Black (2014) 58 Cal.4th 912, 919 [substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist”].) “[B]oth self-defense and defense of others, whether perfect or imperfect, require an actual fear of imminent harm.” (People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 868 .) Here, the jury would have had to speculate regarding evidence it did not have—evidence that defendant slashed Rocha in response to a threat by

2023The court also stated that it would 72 PEOPLE v. THOMAS Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, J. reconsider its ruling if defendant presented additional evidence to support his theory. “[A] trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 .) “ ‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial — that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could c

2014(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 .)” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 ; accord, People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 179 (Booker).) ‘“To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.’ (People v. Blair [(2005)] 36 Cal.4th [686,] 745, citing People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .)” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 250 .) “Murder is th

2021(See People v. Peoples (2016) 62 Cal.4th 718 , 741–742.) 9 [Citation.]” (People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 759 .) It does not mean “ ‘ “any evidence, no matter how weak,” ’ ” but rather, “ ‘ “ ‘evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . . conclude[ ]’ ” that the lesser offense, but not the greater was committed.’ ” (People v. Moye (2009) 47 Cal.4th 537, 553 .) In this case, defense counsel requested the trial court instruct the jury on attempted manslaughter based on heat of passion.

2021(Id. at p. 162; People v. Thomas (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 630, 643 .) Substantial evidence in this context is evidence “ ‘ “from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” ( Enraca, supra, at p. 759 .) It does not mean “ ‘ “any evidence, no matter how weak,” ’ ” but rather, “ ‘ “ ‘evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . . conclude[]’ ” that the lesser offense, but not the greater was committed.’ ” (People v. Moye (2009) 47 Cal.4th 537, 553 (Moye).) Evidence of the

2016(People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668 , 684 & fn. 12 [it is not the case that “jury instructions must be given whenever any evidence is presented, no matter how weak”], overruled on another ground in In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 777 .) “The trial court is not required to present theories the jury could not reasonably find to exist.” (People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73, 78 .) We review the trial court’s determination de novo and independently decide whether there 5 The trial court granted Tepelikyan’s motion at the end of the prosecution’s evidence in the second trial to

2013(People v. Villanueva (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 41, 49 ; see also People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745 [substantial evidence means “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.”].) “[B]oth self-defense and defense of others, whether perfect or imperfect, require an actual fear of imminent harm.” (People v. Butler (2009) 46 Cal.4th 847, 868 ; see also In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 768, 783 [“The defendant’s fear must be of imminent danger to life or great bodily injury.”].) In the present case,

2025Defendant then shot Martinez while Raymond’s view was obstructed. “‘“To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.”’ (People v. Burney [(2009)] 47 Cal.4th [203,] 250.) ‘Speculative, minimal, or insubstantial evidence is insufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense.’” (Thomas, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 385, quoting People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 132 .) In

2023The court also stated that it would 72 PEOPLE v. THOMAS Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, J. reconsider its ruling if defendant presented additional evidence to support his theory. “[A] trial court must instruct on general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 953 .) “ ‘To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial — that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could c

2015(Moye, at p. 548; Breverman, at p. 154; People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 114 .) “ ‘ “To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.” [Citations.]’ ” (People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 758 ; see also People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 813 ; People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 584 .) We independently review the trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser incl

2013(Booker, at p. 181; People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 584 ; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154 .) “ „ “To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantial—that is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.” [Citations.]‟ ” (Enraca, at p. 758; People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771, 813 ; Manriquez, at p. 584.) We independently review the trial court‟s failure to instruct on a lesser included offense.