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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 1 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. Garciagreen2 sentences1994It is true, as defendant argues, that appellate courts have long cautioned against "an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt." ( People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal. App.3d 609, 632 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 314 ]; see also People v. Paulsell (1896) 115 Cal. 6, 10 [ 46 P. 734 ]; People v. Garcia (1975) 54 Cal. App.3d 61, 63-68 [ 126 Cal. Rptr. 275 ].) This is not because the instruction cannot be improved today. 1994It is true, as defendant argues, that appellate courts have long cautioned against "an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt." ( People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal. App.3d 609, 632 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 314 ]; see also People v. Paulsell (1896) 115 Cal. 6, 10 [ 46 P. 734 ]; People v. Garcia (1975) 54 Cal. App.3d 61, 63-68 [ 126 Cal. Rptr. 275 ].) This is not because the instruction cannot be improved today. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Yoshimuragreen2 sentences2026Well intentioned efforts to ‘clarify’ and ‘explain’ these criteria have had the result of creating confusion and uncertainty, and have repeatedly been struck down by the courts of review of this state.” Simply put, “an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt is a perilous exercise.” (People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 609, 632 .) We would once again urge trial court judges to resist a temptation to modify CALCRIM No. 220 when instructing a jury. 8 II Double Imposition of the Prior Serious Felony Enhancements Defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing four 5-year serious felony 1994It is true, as defendant argues, that appellate courts have long cautioned against "an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt." ( People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal. App.3d 609, 632 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 314 ]; see also People v. Paulsell (1896) 115 Cal. 6, 10 [ 46 P. 734 ]; People v. Garcia (1975) 54 Cal. App.3d 61, 63-68 [ 126 Cal. Rptr. 275 ].) This is not because the instruction cannot be improved today. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Paulsellgreen2 sentences1994It is true, as defendant argues, that appellate courts have long cautioned against "an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt." ( People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal. App.3d 609, 632 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 314 ]; see also People v. Paulsell (1896) 115 Cal. 6, 10 [ 46 P. 734 ]; People v. Garcia (1975) 54 Cal. App.3d 61, 63-68 [ 126 Cal. Rptr. 275 ].) This is not because the instruction cannot be improved today. 1994It is true, as defendant argues, that appellate courts have long cautioned against "an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt." ( People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal. App.3d 609, 632 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 314 ]; see also People v. Paulsell (1896) 115 Cal. 6, 10 [ 46 P. 734 ]; People v. Garcia (1975) 54 Cal. App.3d 61, 63-68 [ 126 Cal. Rptr. 275 ].) This is not because the instruction cannot be improved today. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Victor v. Nebraska
green
2 sentences2015(Ibid.; People v. Zepeda (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 25, 30 .) But our Supreme Court has cautioned against “‘an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt’” and warned that “varying from the standard is a ‘perilous exercise.’” (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 503-504 .) In evaluating a challenge to the wording of a jury instruction on reasonable doubt, the issue presented is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions to allow conviction based on proof insufficient to meet the [correct] standard.” (Victor v. Nebraska, supra, 511 U.S., at p. 6 .) Here, 2011As Victor v. Nebraska [(1994)] 511 U.S. [1] [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583, 114 . | 3 | 1994–2015 |
People v. Freeman
green
1 sentence2015(Ibid.; People v. Zepeda (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 25, 30 .) But our Supreme Court has cautioned against “‘an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt’” and warned that “varying from the standard is a ‘perilous exercise.’” (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 503-504 .) In evaluating a challenge to the wording of a jury instruction on reasonable doubt, the issue presented is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions to allow conviction based on proof insufficient to meet the [correct] standard.” (Victor v. Nebraska, supra, 511 U.S., at p. 6 .) Here, | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Zepeda
green
1 sentence2015(Ibid.; People v. Zepeda (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 25, 30 .) But our Supreme Court has cautioned against “‘an impromptu instruction on reasonable doubt’” and warned that “varying from the standard is a ‘perilous exercise.’” (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 503-504 .) In evaluating a challenge to the wording of a jury instruction on reasonable doubt, the issue presented is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the instructions to allow conviction based on proof insufficient to meet the [correct] standard.” (Victor v. Nebraska, supra, 511 U.S., at p. 6 .) Here, | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.