CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Court Control of Proceedings
......Jury Instructions
.........Erroneous Instructions
32 Cards On This Topic:

State trial ct.’s misstatement that Pet. had pled guilty, cured belatedly by flawed instructions, violated Pet.'s state and federal constitutional rights.

As limiting version of CALJIC No. 3.32 precluded jury from considering D's intellectual disability on charges of dissuading a witness and witness-killing special-circ., those convictions reversed; murder convictions affirmed. Death penalty affirmed.

Kidnap-murder special-circumstance finding set aside where jury incorrectly instructed on simple kidnapping, but correctly instructed on aggravated kidnapping, and it was impossible to determine on which theory the verdict rested.

Conviction of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder, not expressly charged, reduced to attempted murder where jury was not properly instructed on the meaning of "willful," "deliberate," and "premeditated."

Harmless error to add serious bodily injury requirement to mayhem instruction where evidence strongly supported a finding that D intended to inflict a disabling injury.

As question of D’s sanity is entirely irrelevant at guilt phase of a bifurcated trial under PC §1026, no instruction on the conclusive presumption of sanity should be given.

Harmless error not to instruct that to convict D of 1st degree murder of another under the provocative act doctrine, jury had to find D ••personally•• premeditated and deliberated the attempted murder of V.

As jury failed to reach a verdict on torture special circumstance, judgment of death reversed; kidnapping special circumstance finding set aside because the trial ct. erroneously instructed the jury.

No reversible error in court's mistakes in oral instructions where jury given correctly worded written instructions and told it was governed by the instruction in its final wording.

Court erred in instructing on possessing "false compartment" in car where D did not add to, alter or modify vehicle's original factory equipment.

Harmless error to fail to instruct jury either that it had to determine that V's mother was an accomplice or that she was an accomplice as a matter of law.

Trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could consider evidence of D's mental disabilities in deciding whether he harbored the state of mind required for imperfect self-defense.

As substantial evidence showed D was unconscious, w/in the legal meaning of the defense, when he committed violent assault, trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense.

Trial ct. committed reversible error in failing to sua sponte instruct on the definition of "identifiable person," where it was essential to the charged crime of secretly filming an "identifiable person" under or through his/her clothing.

1st degree murder conviction reversed where instructions erred in imposing uncharged conspiracy liability for 1st degree murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Collective cultivation defense may apply to informal joint cultivation of marijuana between two qualified patients growing it for their own medical use; prejudicial error not to give instruction on the defense.

Reversible error not to make clear that a lawful marijuana cooperative can consist of patient members who grow it and patient members who pay growers with money in exchange for marijuana.

Reversal of felony throwing substance at a vehicle (VC 23110(b)) required where trial ct. failed to instruct on the lesser included misdemeanor offense in VC 23110(a).

Reversible error not to inform 2d jury of D's gross vehicular manslaughter conviction in 1st trial, leaving jury with the false impression D would be unpunished for his actions if it did not convict him of murder.

Insufficient evidence supported instruction on MMPA defense as D did not produce enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt he was lawfully growing MJ for himself and other qualified patients, and not earning a profit.

Trial court erred prejudicially in failing to instruct on attempted voluntary manslaughter based on a sudden quarrel or heat of passion where shooting took place during heated exchange at party.

Harmless error not to instruct on mistake-of-fact defense as to attemping lewd act on child under 14, where some evidence justified instruction but it was not reasonably probable D would have obtained a more favorable outcome.

Trial court committed harmless error by instructing jury it could consider evidence of Ds' activities with other Sureños in deciding whether Ds were guilty of murdering V.

Reversible PC 1138 error for trial court to answer jury's question in misleading manner which failed to address the crux of the inquiry and informed the jury incorrectly on the instruction.

In pregnancy discrim. case, D's manager was entitled to exercise her business judgment without having to second guess—court erred in refusing this instruction and in instructing that potential hazard to a fetus is not a defense.

Person who has sex by impersonating someone other than a married V’s spouse is not guilty of rape of an unconscious person under PC 261(a)(4)—instruction incorrect (due to historical anomalies in law and statutory definition).

Although trial court erred by instructing jury that D could not be convicted of assault unless he actually knew his reckless driving would cause injury to another, instruction inured to D's benefit and error was harmless.

Where unconsciousness was D's primary defense to DUI, failure to instruct on unconsciousness effectively removed his principal defense from jury's consideration and was reversible error.

Error to give consciousness of guilt instruction and unmodified voluntary intoxication instruction that prohibited consideration of D's voluntary intoxication for anything other than whether he knew V was unconscious of oral copulation when it occurred.

As consent defense crucial to D's guilt or innocence of burglary, D has BofP to establish a reasonable doubt as to facts underlying the defense and court erred by instructing his burden was preponderance of the evidence.

Trial court erred by instructing with CACI 3704, which incorrectly instructs that the right of control alone is dispositive in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor; other factors must be considered.

Erroneous instruction re battery not prejudicial where it could have benefited D and in any case ample evidence supported conviction of principal offense of corporal injury to former cohabitant.