(1) Does the trial court have a sua sponte duty to give instructions and verdict forms on crime B if warranted by the evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ortega, 19 Cal.4th 686, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 489, 968 P.2d 48 (Cal. 1998):
(2) The trial court has a sua sponte duty to give instructions and verdict forms on crime B, again if warranted by the evidence. (People v. Birks (1998) 19 Cal.4th 108, 118, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
When a defendant's extrajudicial statements form part of the prosecution's evidence, does the trial court have to instruct sua sponte that a finding of guilt cannot be predicated on the statements alone? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances of the crime scene evidence will be admitted during the penalty phase of a penalty trial, does the trial court error not to exclude the evidence? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant who objected to an instruction and verdict form referencing a lying-in-wait theory of first degree murder continue to oppose the instruction and the verdict forms? (California, United States of America)
If a tainted warrant affidavit is amended to remove tainted evidence from the warrant affidavit at issue, is the warrant sufficient to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrant? (California, United States of America)
How have courts dealt with the situation where the verdict form signed by the jury is different in some respect from the verdict as declared and acknowledged in open court? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
Does a defendant have grounds to argue that a trial court prejudicially errs in failing to instruct the jury sua sponte at the penalty phase to disregard the no-sympathy instruction at the guilt phase? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied by appellate courts to a decision by a trial court to instruct or not to instruct a jury? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted other-crimes evidence in a trial where a defendant admitted that he had committed a crime against a witness? (California, United States of America)
