argumentative instruction in California

2026An argumentative instruction is “ ‘of such character as to invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.’ ” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 .) For example, People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 , discussed an instruction that was deemed argumentative because it “ ‘direct[ed] the attention of the jury to specific testimony and [told] the jury it may look to that testimony for the purpose of forming a reasonable doubt on an issue.’ ” Here, CALCRIM No. 505, as given, referred to Govey possibly threatening or harming Machlei

2026An argumentative instruction is “ ‘of such character as to invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.’ ” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 .) For example, People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 , discussed an instruction that was deemed argumentative because it “ ‘direct[ed] the attention of the jury to specific testimony and [told] the jury it may look to that testimony for the purpose of forming a reasonable doubt on an issue.’ ” Here, CALCRIM No. 505, as given, referred to Govey possibly threatening or harming Machlei

2026An argumentative instruction is “ ‘of such character as to invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.’ ” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 .) For example, People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 , discussed an instruction that was deemed argumentative because it “ ‘direct[ed] the attention of the jury to specific testimony and [told] the jury it may look to that testimony for the purpose of forming a reasonable doubt on an issue.’ ” Here, CALCRIM No. 505, as given, referred to Govey possibly threatening or harming Machlei

2026An argumentative instruction is “ ‘of such character as to invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.’ ” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 .) For example, People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 , discussed an instruction that was deemed argumentative because it “ ‘direct[ed] the attention of the jury to specific testimony and [told] the jury it may look to that testimony for the purpose of forming a reasonable doubt on an issue.’ ” Here, CALCRIM No. 505, as given, referred to Govey possibly threatening or harming Machlei

2022Prejudice We review an argumentative instruction for harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .

2020“A jury instruction is improperly argumentative if ‘it would invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to the defendant [(or the prosecution)] from specified items of evidence on a disputed question of fact, and therefore properly belongs not in instructions, but in the arguments of counsel to the jury.’ [Citations.] ‘In a proper instruction, “[what] is pinpointed is not specific evidence as such, but the theory of the defendant’s [(or the prosecution’s)] case.” ’ [Citation.] We review an argumentative instruction for harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .” (Peopl

2022(See People v. Battle (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 50, 84 (Battle) [Special instruction stated: “ ‘Among the factors which may be considered in making the determination of aiding and abetting are: presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, flight, and conduct before and after the offense.’ ”].) We agree with their conclusion that the listing of these particular factors is not argumentative and does not invade the province of the jury “because it merely list[s] factors.” (Id. at p. 85.) As the Battle court explained: “ ‘An instruction is argumentative when it recites facts drawn from the evid

2022(See People v. Battle (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 50, 84 (Battle) [Special instruction stated: “ ‘Among the factors which may be considered in making the determination of aiding and abetting are: presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, flight, and conduct before and after the offense.’ ”].) We agree with their conclusion that the listing of these particular factors is not argumentative and does not invade the province of the jury “because it merely list[s] factors.” (Id. at p. 85.) As the Battle court explained: “ ‘An instruction is argumentative when it recites facts drawn from the evid

2025(See Carrington, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 192.) Defendant asserts that the instruction was argumentative. “ ‘Instructions should state rules of law in general terms and should not be calculated to amount to an argument to the jury in the guise of a statement of law. [Citations.] Moreover, it is error to give, and proper to refuse, instructions that unduly overemphasize issues, theories or defenses either by repetition or singling them out or making them unduly prominent although the instruction may be a legal proposition.’ ” (Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.Ap

2020“An argumentative instruction ‘invite[s] the jury to draw inferences favorable to [a party] from specified items of evidence on a disputed question of fact, and therefore properly belongs . . . in the arguments of counsel to the jury.’ ” (People v. Flores (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 216, 220 [CALCRIM No. 875, which informed jury that assault does not require proof of intent to use force, actual touching, or resulting injury, was not impermissibly argumentative]; People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1135 .) CALCRIM No. 1112 did not invite the jury to draw any inferences favorable to the prosecuti

1992(People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 600 , 755 P.2d 1049 ].) The court must, however, refuse an argumentative instruction, that is, an instruction “of such a character as to invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.” (People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1276 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 451 , 792 P.2d 251 ]; People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 913-914 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 765 P.2d 940 ].) In asking the trial court to emphasize to the jury the possibility that the beatings were a “misguided, irrational and totally un

1992(People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126, 1137 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 600 , 755 P.2d 1049 ].) The court must, however, refuse an argumentative instruction, that is, an instruction “of such a character as to invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.” (People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1276 [ 270 Cal.Rptr. 451 , 792 P.2d 251 ]; People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 913-914 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 765 P.2d 940 ].) In asking the trial court to emphasize to the jury the possibility that the beatings were a “misguided, irrational and totally un

2019(People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 886 .) Here, though defendant’s uncharged offenses were described as “similar” to the charged offenses, and his defense identified as the same, the jury was not invited or compelled to draw any inference from this evidence, and CALCRIM No. 375 did not suggest the court’s opinion.

2013(People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857 , 978 P.2d 15 ].) “[U]nder Watson , a defendant must show it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error.” (People v. Mena (2012) 54 Cal.4th 146, 162 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 , 277 P.3d 160 ].) We need not decide whether the instruction was argumentative because even assuming error, we conclude it was harmless under People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at page 836 .

2022(See People v. Battle (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 50, 84 (Battle) [Special instruction stated: “ ‘Among the factors which may be considered in making the determination of aiding and abetting are: presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, flight, and conduct before and after the offense.’ ”].) We agree with their conclusion that the listing of these particular factors is not argumentative and does not invade the province of the jury “because it merely list[s] factors.” (Id. at p. 85.) As the Battle court explained: “ ‘An instruction is argumentative when it recites facts drawn from the evid

2013(Id. at p. 85.) We reach the same conclusion here. “ ‘An instruction is argumentative when it recites facts drawn from the evidence in such a manner as to constitute argument to the jury in the guise of a statement of law. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] An argumentative instruction is ‘ “an instruction ‘of such a character as to invite the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence.’ ” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Battle, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 85 .) The special instruction on aiding and abetting in this case is not argumentative 24 because it merely

2015Woods contends that this portion of the instruction pinpointed particular evidence, as opposed to the prosecution’s theory of the case, and “invited the jury to draw an inference of great bodily injury in favor of the prosecution based on the specific evidence of the pregnancy in this case.” “A trial court must instruct on the law applicable to the facts of the case.” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 , 827 P.2d 388 ].) “[L]egally correct and factually warranted pinpoint instructions designed to elaborate and clarify other instructions should be delivered upon req

2015Woods contends that this portion of the instruction pinpointed particular evidence, as opposed to the prosecution’s theory of the case, and “invited the jury to draw an inference of great bodily injury in favor of the prosecution based on the specific evidence of the pregnancy in this case.” “A trial court must instruct on the law applicable to the facts of the case.” (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 437 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 , 827 P.2d 388 ].) “[L]egally correct and factually warranted pinpoint instructions designed to elaborate and clarify other instructions should be delivered upon req

2013(People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857 , 978 P.2d 15 ].) “[U]nder Watson , a defendant must show it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error.” (People v. Mena (2012) 54 Cal.4th 146, 162 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 , 277 P.3d 160 ].) We need not decide whether the instruction was argumentative because even assuming error, we conclude it was harmless under People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at page 836 .

2013(People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857 , 978 P.2d 15 ].) “[U]nder Watson , a defendant must show it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent the error.” (People v. Mena (2012) 54 Cal.4th 146, 162 [ 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 469 , 277 P.3d 160 ].) We need not decide whether the instruction was argumentative because even assuming error, we conclude it was harmless under People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at page 836 .

2025(See Carrington, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 192.) Defendant asserts that the instruction was argumentative. “ ‘Instructions should state rules of law in general terms and should not be calculated to amount to an argument to the jury in the guise of a statement of law. [Citations.] Moreover, it is error to give, and proper to refuse, instructions that unduly overemphasize issues, theories or defenses either by repetition or singling them out or making them unduly prominent although the instruction may be a legal proposition.’ ” (Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.Ap

2013(People v. McKinzie (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1302, 1363 [requested pinpoint instruction is argumentative where it designates specified evidence as “mitigating”]; People v. Benson (1990) 52 Cal.3d 754, 806 ; People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1276 .) A proper pinpoint instruction, by contrast, is one which identifies the theory of a party as it relates to the burden of proof and neutrally invites a jury to consider whether evidence in the record supports that theory.