By CALCRIM Number

Trial court erred by not instructing sua sponte with CALCRIM 224 where prosecutor substantially relied upon circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected respondent’s argument that the instruction need only be given when the circumstantial evidence is “equally consistent” with innocence. However, the error was harmless under Watson where no reasonable inferences pointed toward innocence.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

The Court of Appeal concludes that the trial court’s granting of the prosecution request to amend the definition of force in pattern jury instructions for forcible rape (PC 261) and forcible oral copulation (PC 287) was erroneous and prejudicial. The amendment which added, “Force also includes the physical movement and positioning of the female’s body to accomplish the act” was legally incorrect because it suggested that physical movement will always satisfy the force element for the charged offenses.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

During jury deliberations, the trial court did not err by providing the statutory language regarding voluntary intoxication (PC 29.4), as opposed to the CALCRIM jury instruction (CALCRIM 625). Appellant was charged with murder. During deliberations, the jury asked about intoxication in relation to culpability in a “heat of passion” situation. The defense requested trial court to respond with CALCRIM 625, the standard voluntary intoxication instruction. Instead, the trial court responded by providing the language of PC 29.4(b). The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court did not err by providing PC 29.4(b) since the trial…

Any error regarding CALCRIM No. 571 (imperfect self-defense) and CALCRIM No. 3428 (consideration of mental disorder) was harmless due to the significant evidence of excessive force, which can undermine a claim of imperfect self-defense. The trial court denied appellant's request to modify CALCRIM No. 571 and CALCRIM No. 3428 to tell the jury it could consider his mental disorders in determining whether he acted in imperfect self-defense; that is whether his mental disorders negated malice. Even if this were error, it was harmless under Watson, because excessive force can defeat a claim of imperfect self-defense, and here there was ample…

The Court of Appeal denies defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to overturn his convictions for attempted murder because they did not comply with the limitations on a concurrent intent or “kill zone” theory of liability imposed by People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591. The Court rejects the claims of insufficient evidence to support the kill zone instruction and insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. The Court further holds that the pre-Canizales version of the kill zone instruction, CALCRIM No. 600, included the elements required by Canizales.

Ordered depublished 5/28/25…