Is a trial court error in failing to instruct on the need to find intent to kill deemed harmless?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Osband, 13 Cal.4th 622, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 26, 919 P.2d 640 (Cal. 1996):

Adapting this analysis to the situation in this case, the trial court's error in failing to instruct on the need to find intent to kill may be deemed harmless if the jury, untainted by the error, necessarily found that defendant committed certain criminal acts and no rational jury could find that defendant committed those acts without intent to kill. In other words, the error may be deemed harmless if "[t]he method of execution itself precludes any inference the murder was accidental or unintentional." (People v. Johnson, supra, 6 Cal.4th 1, 47, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673.) This is such a case.

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

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

Is there any instructional error in general criminal intent instruction used by the trial court to include counts 4 and 7 in the General Criminal intent instruction? (California, United States of America)

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)

Can an appellant seek review of an instruction in the Superior Court of Appeal where the original instruction was found to have made errors that could have been cured in the trial court? (California, United States of America)

What is the harmless error analysis that a reviewing court should use when a trial court's jury instructions incorrectly define an element of a charged offense? (California, United States of America)

Does the Attorney General have a valid argument that if a trial court erred, if the error was harmless, is that error harmless? (California, United States of America)

If the trial court erred by failing to give an admonition or even to grant the motion for a mistrial, is the error harmless? (California, United States of America)

Does defendant fail to show prejudice in a motion where the trial court failed to sustain his objection to a finding that the evidentiary error was prejudicial? (California, United States of America)

How have we dealt with the Attorney General's contention that a defendant forfeited any claim of error by failing to object or request modification to an instruction in the trial court? (California, United States of America)

Does a defendant have any grounds to argue that the trial court erred in failing to give the cautionary instruction at the end of trial? (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)

Is a trial court error in failing to instruct on the need to find intent to kill deemed harmless?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources