Does the error in failing to modify CALCRIM No. 301 constitute a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Perez, B279779 (Cal. App. 2017):
Appellant contends, and the People concede, that the trial court erred in failing to modify CALCRIM No. 301, as requested by appellant's trial counsel. Appellant further contends the error was not harmless under either the federal harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard enunciated in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 or the state reasonably probable standard enunciated in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.
"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
If defendant fails to establish all the errors of the trial court as a cumulative result of the cumulative error, can he continue to argue that the cumulative effect of the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and mandates reversal? (California, United States of America)
What is the federal harmless error standard for determining that an error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the error in CALCRIM No. 875 in defining a deadly weapon constitute a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does a jury error in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense constitute a harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Is Defendant's contention that erroneous admission of uncharged misconduct evidence should be evaluated under the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard for federal constitutional error? (California, United States of America)
Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the requirement in criminal cases that constitutional error be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the requirement in criminal cases that constitutional error be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does the prosecution error regarding the destruction of a key sheet from a photo lineup of alleged carjacks and carjacking victims constitute harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Does a trial court error of inadequately warning a defendant of the pitfalls and hazards involved in self-representation constitute harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
