abstract principle in California

2026(People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 .) “ ‘The test for determining whether instructions on a particular theory of guilt are appropriate is whether there is substantial evidence which would support conviction on that theory. [Citation.] To determine whether there is substantial evidence to support a conviction we must view the record in a light most favorable to conviction, resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of conviction.

2016(People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 ; People v. Roehler (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 353, 393 .) The only evidence the People can muster as a basis for the instruction are three instances in defendant’s testimony.

2025The jury must consider all the facts and circumstances it might ‘ “expect[] to operate on [defendant’s] mind . . . .” ’ ” (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1065 .) “Evidence that a victim had previously threatened or harmed others is relevant to a defendant’s claim of self-defense only if the defendant knew of the victim’s prior threatening conduct.” (People v. Bates (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1, 9-10 , italics omitted.) “As a defendant’s ‘ “perceptions are at issue,” ’ prior known threats by the victim ‘ “may color [the defendant’s] perceptions of that individual.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 10, quot

2025The jury must consider all the facts and circumstances it might ‘ “expect[] to operate on [defendant’s] mind . . . .” ’ ” (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1065 .) “Evidence that a victim had previously threatened or harmed others is relevant to a defendant’s claim of self-defense only if the defendant knew of the victim’s prior threatening conduct.” (People v. Bates (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1, 9-10 , italics omitted.) “As a defendant’s ‘ “perceptions are at issue,” ’ prior known threats by the victim ‘ “may color [the defendant’s] perceptions of that individual.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 10, quot

2021(People v. Elize (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 615 .) Speculation is insufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense.

2021(People v. Elize (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 605, 615 .) Speculation is insufficient to require an instruction on a lesser included offense.

2021While it may be true, as an abstract principle, that a jury may believe parts of a witness’s testimony and reject others 19 (People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 641 ), for an instruction on a defense theory to be required, there must still be substantial evidence in the entire record to support it.

2021While it may be true, as an abstract principle, that a jury may believe parts of a witness’s testimony and reject others 19 (People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 641 ), for an instruction on a defense theory to be required, there must still be substantial evidence in the entire record to support it.

2019Maston 's observation that "kidnapping is one of the most serious of all crimes" ( Maston, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 565 , 109 Cal.Rptr. 164 ), is certainly true as an abstract principle, but in assessing Palmer's culpability for the offense he committed, the relevant question is what danger and injury he in fact subjected his victim to, not what danger, force and violence may be present in a kidnapping for robbery.

2019Maston 's observation that "kidnapping is one of the most serious of all crimes" ( Maston, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 565 , 109 Cal.Rptr. 164 ), is certainly true as an abstract principle, but in assessing Palmer's culpability for the offense he committed, the relevant question is what danger and injury he in fact subjected his victim to, not what danger, force and violence may be present in a kidnapping for robbery.

2016(People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 ; People v. Roehler (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 353, 393 .) The only evidence the People can muster as a basis for the instruction are three instances in defendant’s testimony.

2015(People v. Cross (2008) 45 Cal.4th 58, 67 ; People v. Roehler (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 353, 393 .) The only evidence the People can muster as a basis for the instruction are three instances in defendant’s testimony.

2026(People v. Falaniko (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1247 .) The instruction here was abstract because Letchaw did not testify at all, so he could not fail to explain or deny incriminating evidence during his nonexistent testimony.

2025The jury must consider all the facts and circumstances it might ‘ “expect[] to operate on [defendant’s] mind . . . .” ’ ” (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1065 .) “Evidence that a victim had previously threatened or harmed others is relevant to a defendant’s claim of self-defense only if the defendant knew of the victim’s prior threatening conduct.” (People v. Bates (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1, 9-10 , italics omitted.) “As a defendant’s ‘ “perceptions are at issue,” ’ prior known threats by the victim ‘ “may color [the defendant’s] perceptions of that individual.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 10, quot

2024(People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1060 , 1065–1066 (Minifie); People v. Davis (1965) 63 Cal.2d 648, 656 .) “ ‘Common sense and experience tell us that it is reasonable for a person threatened by another to be on heightened alert upon encountering that threatener, and to reasonably take [the threat] into account in deciding the necessity for, and the amount of, defensive action, in response to any act on the part of the threatener reasonably appearing to be calculated to carry out that threat.’ ” (Minifie, at p. 1065.) A defendant is entitled to corroborate their testimony that they fe

2015Finally, we reiterate that, just as with perfect self-defense or any defense, '[a] trial court need give a requested instruction concerning a defense only if there is substantial evidence to support the defense.' (People v. Aris, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1192 , italics added.)" (In re Christian S., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 783 .) The Supreme Court elaborated on the narrowness of self-defense in People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073 , 1094: "The law thus recognizes that the objective component is not measured by an abstract standard of reasonableness but one based on the defendant's percep

2015Finally, we reiterate that, just as with perfect self-defense or any defense, '[a] trial court need give a requested instruction concerning a defense only if there is substantial evidence to support the defense.' (People v. Aris, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1192 , italics added.)" (In re Christian S., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 783 .) The Supreme Court elaborated on the narrowness of self-defense in People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073 , 1094: "The law thus recognizes that the objective component is not measured by an abstract standard of reasonableness but one based on the defendant's percep

2015(People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1130 .) “Under Watson, reversal is required if it is reasonably probable the result would have been more favorable to the defendant had the error not occurred.”6 (Ibid.) Applying the Watson standard, we conclude inclusion of the instruction was harmless.

2015Furthermore, “ ‘in most cases the giving of an abstract instruction is only a technical error which does not constitute ground for reversal.’ ” (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 282 [quoting 5 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1989) Trial, § 2950, p. 3624].) At most, the error is one of state law subject to harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .

2014(Albright v. Oliver, supra, 510 U.S. at p. 271 ; Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization (1979) 441 U.S. 600, 617 . [“‘one cannot go into court and claim a “violation of § 1983”—for § 1983 by itself does not protect anyone against anything’”].) There are no facts or argument setting out a violation of the right of association.13 Likewise, the “right to own property” and the right to be free of government intrusion are not commonly understood on those terms as constitutional rights.

2014Because his state of mind is a critical issue, he may explain his actions in light of his knowledge concerning the victim. [Citations.] Antecedent threats as well as the victim’s reputation for violence, prior ‘assaults, and other circumstances [are] relevant to interpreting the attacker’s behavior.’ [Citations.] While such considerations alone do not establish a right of self-defense [citation], they illuminate and reflect on the reasonableness of defendant’s perception of both the imminence of danger and the need to resist with the degree of force applied. [Citation.] They may also justify t

2014(Zamos v. Stroud, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 965 .) No relief exists for an abstract violation of section 1983 of title 42 of the United States Code; a claim may only be stated for substantive, specific federal rights conferred in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

2014(Albright v. Oliver, supra, 510 U.S. at p. 271 ; Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization (1979) 441 U.S. 600, 617 . [“‘one cannot go into court and claim a “violation of § 1983”—for § 1983 by itself does not protect anyone against anything’”].) There are no facts or argument setting out a violation of the right of association.13 Likewise, the “right to own property” and the right to be free of government intrusion are not commonly understood on those terms as constitutional rights.

2013(People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1225 .) III Evidence in Support of Assault on Officers Boyd, Bell, and Nicodemus Defendant next contends insufficient evidence supported his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon on Officers Boyd, Bell, and Nicodemus.4 Specifically, he asserts there was no “evidence that shots were fired in their direction” because “the shots may have been fired in the air, or in another direction.” We disagree.

2005The majority further holds that "[o]nly the most disabling of conditions ... would qualify under the standard [it] announces today." ( Ibid. ) As an abstract principle, I agree.

2002(See Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States (1993) 507 U.S. 234, 241 [ 113 S.Ct. 1199, 1204 , 122 L.Ed.2d 581, 592 ]; People v. Redinger, supra, 55 Cal. at pp. 298-299.) In Molinaro v. New Jersey, supra, 396 U.S. 365 [ 90 S.Ct. 498 , 24 L.Ed.2d 586 ], for instance, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the criminal defendant’s appeal after the defendant, who had been free on bail, failed to surrender himself to state authorities.