ailing instruction in California

2025The question is ‘“whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’”’” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 655 ; accord, People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 ; see Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 643 [“‘it must be established not merely that the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even “universally condemned,” but that it violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment”’].) If the instruction is ambiguous, “we inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood th

2015Code, § 1259; People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691, fn. 12 ; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 129 .) 59. the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) When reviewing assertedly erroneous instructions, “‘we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘“‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of

2017The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’ ” [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a “ ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 , quoting Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 4

2016The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’ ” [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a “ ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 , quoting Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 4

2026The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial 3 “To suffice for implied malice murder, the defendant’s act must not merely be dangerous to life in some vague or speculative sense; it must ‘ “involve[ ] a high degree of probability that it will result in death.” ’ ” (People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981 , 989.) 7. isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’ ” [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is amb

2025The question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ ” ’ (People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 663, 677 [(Mills)], quoting Estelle, p. 72.) ‘ “It is well established that the instruction ‘may not be judged in artificial isolation,’ but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” ’ ([People v.] Foster [(2010)] 50 Cal.4th [1301,] 1335, italics omitted; see People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 235 .) ‘ “If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether 24

2025The question is ‘“whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’”’” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 655 ; accord, People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 ; see Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 643 [“‘it must be established not merely that the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even “universally condemned,” but that it violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment”’].) If the instruction is ambiguous, “we inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood th

2023The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’ ” [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a “ ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 .) We examine the entirety of the instructions, the part

2025The question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “It is well established that the instruction ‘may not be judged in artificial isolation,’ but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” ’ [Citations.] ‘ “If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a ‘ “reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lemcke (2021) 11 Ca

2025The question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ ” ’ (People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 663, 677 [(Mills)], quoting Estelle, p. 72.) ‘ “It is well established that the instruction ‘may not be judged in artificial isolation,’ but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” ’ ([People v.] Foster [(2010)] 50 Cal.4th [1301,] 1335, italics omitted; see People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 235 .) ‘ “If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether 24

2023The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’ ” [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a “ ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 .) We examine the entirety of the instructions, the part

1995On federal habeas corpus review, “[t]he only question ... is ‘whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ [Citations.] ‘ “[I]t must be established not merely that the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even ‘universally condemned,’ but that it violated some [constutitional] right’ ”).” (Estelle v. McGuire, supra, 502 U.S. at p. 72 [ 116 L.Ed.2d at p. 399 ]; accord, Cupp v.Naughten (1973) 414 U.S. 141, 146 [ 38 L.Ed.2d 368, 373 , 94 S.Ct. 396 ].) We do not apply this test because we are reaching the question o

2015(Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 [ 124 S.Ct. 1830 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 701 ].) The question is “‘whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’” ( McGuire, supra, 502 U.S. at pp. 62, 72, quoting Cupp v. Naughten (1973) 414 U.S. 141, 147 [ 38 L.

2015(Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 [ 124 S.Ct. 1830 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 701 ].) The question is “‘whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’” ( McGuire, supra, 502 U.S. at pp. 62, 72, quoting Cupp v. Naughten (1973) 414 U.S. 141, 147 [ 38 L.

2014(Wade v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1994) 29 F.3d 1312, 1320-1321 [reasonable likelihood is the proper standard for determining the effect of an ambiguous instruction, but not where the instruction is unambiguous] [overruled on other grounds by Rohan ex rel.

2014(Wade v. Calderon (9th Cir. 1994) 29 F.3d 1312, 1320-1321 [reasonable likelihood is the proper standard for determining the effect of an ambiguous instruction, but not where the instruction is unambiguous] [overruled on other grounds by Rohan ex rel.

2025The question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ ” ’ (People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 663, 677 [(Mills)], quoting Estelle, p. 72.) ‘ “It is well established that the instruction ‘may not be judged in artificial isolation,’ but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” ’ ([People v.] Foster [(2010)] 50 Cal.4th [1301,] 1335, italics omitted; see People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 235 .) ‘ “If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether 24

2023The question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ ” ’ (People v. Mills (2012) 55 Cal.4th 663, 677 [(Mills)], quoting Estelle, p. 72.) ‘ “It is well established that the instruction ‘may not be judged in artificial isolation,’ but must be considered in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record.” ’ ([People v.] Foster [(2010)] 50 Cal.4th [1301,] 1335, italics omitted; see People v. Haskett (1990) 52 Cal.3d 210, 235 .) ‘ “If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether th

2014The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 .) “In reviewing a claim of error in jury instructions in a criminal case, this court must first consider the jury instructions as a whole to determine whether error has been committed. [Citations.] We may not judge a single jury instruction in artificial isolation, but must view it in the context of the charge and the entire trial record.” (People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323 , 1330–1331; see also G

2014The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 .) “In reviewing a claim of error in jury instructions in a criminal case, this court must first consider the jury instructions as a whole to determine whether error has been committed. [Citations.] We may not judge a single jury instruction in artificial isolation, but must view it in the context of the charge and the entire trial record.” (People v. Moore (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1323 , 1330–1331; see also G

2015Code, § 1259; People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691, fn. 12 ; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 129 .) 59. the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) When reviewing assertedly erroneous instructions, “‘we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘“‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of

2012The question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction .... so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 385 , 112 S.Ct. 475 ] (1991) (quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147 [ 38 L.Ed.2d 368 , 94 S.Ct. 396 ] (1973)). ‘ “[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.” ’ Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 378 [ 108 L.Ed.2d 316 , 110 S.Ct. 1190 ] (1990) (quoting Cupp, supra, at 146-147 ).

2022The question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.” ’ [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a ‘ “reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Constitution.’ ” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182 ; Rivas, supra, 214

2016The question is 7 ' "whether the ailing instruction ... so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process." ' [Citation.] ' "[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge." ' [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a ' "reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way" that violates the Constitution.' " ' " (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 182 ; Rivas, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1429

2026Standard of Review “ ‘We review a claim of instructional error de novo.’ ” (People v. Parker (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1 , 66.) However, “ ‘[i]nstructions should be interpreted, if possible, so as to support the judgment rather than defeat it if they are reasonably susceptible to such interpretation.’ ” (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088 .) Depending upon the basis of the claimed instructional error, we review it for harmlessness under either Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).

2023The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’ ” [Citation.] If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a “ ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 .) We examine the entirety of the instructions, the part

2025The question is ‘“whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’”’” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 655 ; accord, People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 ; see Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 643 [“‘it must be established not merely that the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even “universally condemned,” but that it violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the Fourteenth Amendment”’].) If the instruction is ambiguous, “we inquire ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood th

2013The question is ‘ “whether the ailing instruction ... so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.” ’ [Citations.]” (Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 437 ; Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 ; People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 192 .) “ ‘[I]t must be established not merely that the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even “universally condemned,” but that it violated some [constitutional] right .…’ ” (Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 643 , fn. omitted; Estelle v. McGuire, supra, 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) Correct oral instruc

2022The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction . . . so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” [Citations.] “ ‘[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.) “The reviewing court also must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202 .) Here, there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the arguably ambiguous answer to the first question in

2015Code, § 1259; People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691, fn. 12 ; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 129 .) 59. the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) When reviewing assertedly erroneous instructions, “‘we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘“‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of

2015Because it is not enough that there is some ‘slight possibility’ that the jury misapplied the instruction, [citation], the pertinent question ‘is “whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’”” (Waddington v. Sarausad (2008) 555 U.S. 179, 190-191 [ 129 S.Ct. 823 , 172 L.Ed.2d 532 ]; People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630, 688 [“‘[I]n reviewing an ambiguous 10 instruction . . . we inquire “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Consti

2015Because it is not enough that there is some ‘slight possibility’ that the jury misapplied the instruction, [citation], the pertinent question ‘is “whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’”” (Waddington v. Sarausad (2008) 555 U.S. 179, 190-191 [ 129 S.Ct. 823 , 172 L.Ed.2d 532 ]; People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630, 688 [“‘[I]n reviewing an ambiguous 10 instruction . . . we inquire “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Consti

2015Because it is not enough that there is some ‘slight possibility’ that the jury misapplied the instruction, [citation], the pertinent question ‘is “whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’”” (Waddington v. Sarausad (2008) 555 U.S. 179, 190-191 [ 129 S.Ct. 823 , 172 L.Ed.2d 532 ]; People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630, 688 [“‘[I]n reviewing an ambiguous 10 instruction . . . we inquire “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violates the Consti

2015Code, § 1259; People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691, fn. 12 ; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 129 .) 59. the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) When reviewing assertedly erroneous instructions, “‘we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘“‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of

2015Code, § 1259; People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 691, fn. 12 ; People v. Carey (2007) 41 Cal.4th 109, 129 .) 59. the ailing instruction … so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.”’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.; see Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 .) When reviewing assertedly erroneous instructions, “‘we inquire whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misunderstood and misapplied the instruction.’ [Citations.] ‘“‘“[T]he correctness of jury instructions is to be determined from the entire charge of the court, not from a consideration of