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 2019–2026 4 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. Guitongreen2 sentences2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. 2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Canizalesgreen2 sentences2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. 2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2026The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the 28 instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 ; People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and the record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, at p. 329.) In particular, we may conclude that “counsel’s arguments clarified an ambiguous jury charge,” which “is particularly apt wh | 1 | 1 |
People v. Perezgreen2 sentences2019As noted, we review a claim of instructional error de novo. ( *386 People v. Cole , supra , 33 Cal.4th at p. 1210 , 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 .) We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction. ( Houston , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 1229 , 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716 , 281 P.3d 799 .) "The nature of th[e] harmless error analysis depends on whether a jury has been presented with a legally invalid or a factually invalid theory." ( People v. Perez (2005 2019As noted, we review a claim of instructional error de novo. ( *386 People v. Cole , supra , 33 Cal.4th at p. 1210 , 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 .) We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction. ( Houston , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 1229 , 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716 , 281 P.3d 799 .) "The nature of th[e] harmless error analysis depends on whether a jury has been presented with a legally invalid or a factually invalid theory." ( People v. Perez (2005 | 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. Cole
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. 2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. | 3 | 2019–2022 |
People v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. 2022Legal Principles “A trial court in a criminal case is required to give correct jury instructions on the general principles of law relevant to issues raised by the evidence. [Citation.] We review jury instructions under the de novo standard.” (People v. Cruz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1183 .) “Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether ther | 3 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Ross
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. 2022(People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1206 .) However, “[i]t is error to give an instruction which, while correctly stating a principle of law, has no application to the facts of the case.” (People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 (Guiton).) “[I]nstructions not supported by substantial evidence should not be given.” (People v. Ross (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1050 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, supra, 7 Cal. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Middleton v. McNeil
green
1 sentence2026The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the 28 instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 ; People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and the record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, at p. 329.) In particular, we may conclude that “counsel’s arguments clarified an ambiguous jury charge,” which “is particularly apt wh | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Andrade
green
1 sentence2026The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the 28 instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 ; People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and the record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, at p. 329.) In particular, we may conclude that “counsel’s arguments clarified an ambiguous jury charge,” which “is particularly apt wh | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Castaneda
green
1 sentence2026The test is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood the 28 instruction in a manner that violated the defendant’s rights.” (People v. Andrade (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 579, 585 ; People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and the record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction.” (Rivera, at p. 329.) In particular, we may conclude that “counsel’s arguments clarified an ambiguous jury charge,” which “is particularly apt wh | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Webb
green
1 sentence2026(Ibid.; People v. Webb (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 901 , 905–906 (Webb).) Applied here, these principles required the jury to unanimously agree either that a given defendant committed second degree implied malice murder or that he committed first degree felony murder. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Ramos
green
1 sentence2022Legal Principles “A trial court in a criminal case is required to give correct jury instructions on the general principles of law relevant to issues raised by the evidence. [Citation.] We review jury instructions under the de novo standard.” (People v. Cruz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1183 .) “Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether ther | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Cruz
green
1 sentence2022Legal Principles “A trial court in a criminal case is required to give correct jury instructions on the general principles of law relevant to issues raised by the evidence. [Citation.] We review jury instructions under the de novo standard.” (People v. Cruz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1183 .) “Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether ther | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Villatoro
green
1 sentence2022Legal Principles “A trial court in a criminal case is required to give correct jury instructions on the general principles of law relevant to issues raised by the evidence. [Citation.] We review jury instructions under the de novo standard.” (People v. Cruz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1183 .) “Review of the adequacy of instructions is based on whether the trial court ‘fully and fairly instructed on the applicable law.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) “We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether ther | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Houston
green
2 sentences2019As noted, we review a claim of instructional error de novo. ( *386 People v. Cole , supra , 33 Cal.4th at p. 1210 , 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 .) We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction. ( Houston , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 1229 , 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716 , 281 P.3d 799 .) "The nature of th[e] harmless error analysis depends on whether a jury has been presented with a legally invalid or a factually invalid theory." ( People v. Perez (2005 2019As noted, we review a claim of instructional error de novo. ( *386 People v. Cole , supra , 33 Cal.4th at p. 1210 , 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 , 95 P.3d 811 .) We consider the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions and record as a whole to ascertain whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury impermissibly applied the instruction. ( Houston , supra , 54 Cal.4th at p. 1229 , 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 716 , 281 P.3d 799 .) "The nature of th[e] harmless error analysis depends on whether a jury has been presented with a legally invalid or a factually invalid theory." ( People v. Perez (2005 | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.