California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Jackson, A139183 (Cal. App. 2017):
Appellant argues that the instructions did not go far enough because they "fail[ed] to explain the requisite minimum level of risk that the jury must unanimously agree upon." Specifically, he contends the jury should have been further instructed regarding the meaning of "likely," "danger," "substantial danger," and "substantial, serious, well-founded" risk. He, however, did not request an additional instruction on this point and has not, in his appellate briefs, suggested clarifying language. "Once the trial court adequately instructs the jury on the law, it has no duty to give clarifying or amplifying instructions absent a request." (People v. Butler (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 998, 1013.) Accordingly, we reject appellant's due process claim.
d. Failure to Specify the Types of Mental Illnesses Qualifying as Mental Disorders Under the SVPA
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.