What is the test for legal adequacy of jury instructions in medical malpractice cases?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Sandoval, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 836, 50 Cal.App.5th 357 (Cal. App. 2020):
"The legal adequacy of an instruction is reviewed independently. [Citation.]" (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1210, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 95 P.3d 811 ; see, e.g., People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 326, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 363, 441 P.3d 359.) " It is fundamental that jurors are presumed to be intelligent and capable of understanding and applying the court's instructions. [Citation.] When a defendant claims an instruction was subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury, he must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the instruction in the manner asserted. [Citation.] In determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the entire charge of the court, in light of the trial record. [Citation.]" (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 926, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 228, 378 P.3d 615.)
"Great bodily injury is bodily injury which is significant or substantial, not insignificant, trivial or moderate. [Citations.]"
[263 Cal.Rptr.3d 839]
"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.
